House of Representatives
22 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 965

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 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 DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble 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 DOBIE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Prime Minister · COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Par eel 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 HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assem bled. 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 DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– 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 ENDERBY:

– 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 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, asin duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, 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 unprovable 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 CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble 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 BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, 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:

  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 ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, 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 tha 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 LUCOCK:
LYNE, 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:

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 FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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 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 pay.

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I present the following petition:

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

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representativesin 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 WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned sitizens 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 inthe 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 NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 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 Offices 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 JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 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 whichit 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 HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– 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 DUTHIE:
WILMOT, 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 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 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.

Social Services

Mr DALY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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 say 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 FOSTER:

– 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 appliances.

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 85 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 BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned electors of the 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 appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprenehsive national scheme in cooperation wilh 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 GRIFFITHS:

– 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 December 10, 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 appliances.

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 Statesfor 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 standardsof the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That on December 10, 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 appliances.

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 actitivies 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.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr SCHOLES:

– 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 December 10 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 peoplelive in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person -lan guishing 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 appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprenehsive 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 REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That on December 10 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’,

Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right 1o 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 slates, 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 appliances.

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.

Craft Council of Australia

Mr FOSTER:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Craft Council of Australia be represented on the Federal Government Committee to investigate the role of the crafts as an art form.

Your petitioners respectfully request that you will appoint a nominee of the Craft Council of Australia to the above Committee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Craft Council of Australia

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Craft Council of Australia be represented on the Federal Government Committee to investigate the role of the crafts as an art form.

Your petitioners respectfully request that you will appoint a nominee of the Craft Council of Australia to the above Committee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Craft Council of Australia

Mr HURFORD:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Craft Council of Australia be represented on the Federal Government Committee to investigate the role of the crafts as an art form.

Your petitioners respectfully request that you will appoint a nominee of the Craft Council of Australia to the above Committee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Dr SOLOMON:

– 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 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.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

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 showeth:

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.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

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.

Kangaroos

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Victoria respectfully sheweth:

The Red Kangaroo, largest marsupial in the world, has through shooting for commerce become extinct or rare in many areas where it was once prolific.

We, the signatories to this petition feel that the commercial killing of kangaroos, when permissible cropping rates are unknown, is one of the most blatant examples of un-conservation and stupidity being permitted by a civilized country in the world today.

Estimates show that kangaroos alive in their natural habitat as tourist attractions are worth $8200m more to the Australian economy over a period of 9 years, than dead ones exported as pet food or toys over the same period.

We believe that Australians have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape - the kangaroo is our National Symbol, the symbol of a country going ahead in leaps and bounds. We object to the present degradation of this symbol.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

Immediately take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial shooting of kangaroos.

Enact legislation to give the Commonwealth Government responsibility throughout Australia for all native wildlife and habitat upon which it is dependant for survival.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I presentthe following petition:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Dr SOLOMON:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the community of the University of Tasmania 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 on to higher education.

That all education should be free including tertiary education.

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

Universal commonwealth scholarships

Commonwealth scholarships on the basis of need rather than academic ability

Abolition of tertiary fees.

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

Petition received.

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 residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 978

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MCMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I wish to inform the House that Mr Garland, in addition to his duties as the Minister for Supply, will assist the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). I also wish to inform the House that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) is to leave Australia tonight to have discussions and to make inspections in the urban transport field in South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Europe, and to attend the launching of the Australian National Line container ship ‘Australian Explorer’ in Germany. He is expected to return to Australia on 12th April. During his absence the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) will act as Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 978

QUESTION

TOUR CORNERS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: By whom and on what grounds was the decision made to withdraw from the television programme ‘Four Corners’ last Saturday and Sunday the coverage of a recent Sydney Town Hall meeting which had cost $6,000 to prepare? Is that the first occasion on which an entire ‘Four Corners’ programme has been banned? Did the officers responsible for banning it view the coverage before it was banned? Does the Postmaster-General regard it as inconsistent that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should have decided to present part of the proceedings of the meeting in question as a radio programme?

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

– Having regard to the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an autonomous body, if the Leader of the Opposition will put his question on the notice paper I will answer it for him in due course.

page 978

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Housing. The Minister will be aware of a current visit to Australia by representatives of a West German trade union delegation who are here, among other things, to discuss housing finance proposals by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Does the Federal Government have any objection to the entry of the ACTU into the housing finance field? Would such a scheme be of assistance to home buyers and would the ACTU be eligible for funds from the Home Builders’ Account arrangements with building societies?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am naturally aware of the visit of a German trade union delegation to Australia to discuss forms of housing- finance which have been proposed for a number of years by the ACTU and its leader. I am intrigued that at last this trade union delegation has come to Australia because this form of finance - ‘the entry of the ACTU into the field of housing - was first proposed by the present President of the ACTU in 1969, I am anxious for the proposal to be born and I would like to view it when it is born. I hope that when the outcome of these deliberations is made known it will be of some assistance to home buyers in Australia. But I would give some advice to the ACTU and its leadership: If they are to develop some home ownership proposals which will be of advantage to the people of Australia they should be very careful not to take any advice preferred by either the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Reid as those gentlemen have both shown themselves to be quite incapable of even understanding proposals in the field of housing which are designed to reduce costs and to reduce interest rates. I merely give one quick example. It will be recollected that when an Act was passed in this House last year which has enabled interest rates on welfare housing, even in their own State of New South Wales, to come down to levels such as Si per cent and 5) per cent they voted against such proposals. Let me make it clear that such benefits are now accruing to the people of New South Wales and Australia in spite of the actions of the Opposition in this field. I hope that the ACTU will not make itself prey to such very misinformed advice.

The question of whether any body set up by the ACTU would be an appropriate body to receive advances under the Home Builders’ Account is a matter more appro priate for the State registrars of building societies to determine. Therein is also included a very important principle on which I hope the ACTU and its fellow Federal Executive member of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, will quickly decide, that is, whether to adopt the principle of appointing central directors with centra] control, such as one sees in the much maligned capitalist system, or whether to adopt in another way the cooperative principle of having both directors and responsibility dispersed. Those are matters for decision by those who want to set up a housing society. I hope that, after a period of 3 years and 2 ACTU elections, it will ultimately be born.

page 979

QUESTION

LANGUAGE TEACHING

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration. I ask: Does the Commonwealth finance the training of teachers of English to migrant school children? Does it also pay the salaries of such specially trained staff while engaged in such teaching? Has he been informed that the policy of the Victorian Government specifically prevents such specially trained and qualified secondary teachers from teaching English to migrants in secondary schools? Has he been informed that the reason given for this policy is that such teachers are more urgently needed to teach other subjects to secondary pupils as a whole and that these staff are not to be used for teaching English to migrants until the State’s overall shortage of secondary teachers is overcome? Finally, does this policy being pursued by the Victorian Government endanger the welfare of migrant school children and does the Minister’s failure to prevent it represent a dereliction of bis responsibilities?

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

– The Government does pay the salaries of teachers who teach English to migrant children. These teachers are, of course, under the control of the Education Departments of the States. In relation to the particular matter that he has raised, there have been discussions between officers of my Department and officers of the Victorian Department of Education. These discussions are proceeding but I am led to believe that, as a result of these discussions, most of the problems that have existed have been sorted out and I am confident that if there are any problems remaining they also will be very speedily sorted out.

page 980

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN RELATIONS WITH SOUTH EAST ASIA

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs had an opportunity to study the records of conversations which the honourable member for St George had in Singapore with Mr Rajaratnam and with officials of the Malaysian Government? Do the conversations give foundation to some of the damaging statements about our relations with South East Asian countries that the honourable gentleman has been making abroad and in Australia?

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Is this question reviving a debate that is still on the notice paper?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The debate has finished.

Mr Uren:

– It is still on the notice paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bradfield is requesting information as to whether the reports were correct.

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

-I had read the official accounts of the conversations before the debate yesterday and I have taken the opportunity of re-reading them since. Before I make any comment on those conversations, I think I should say that they are confidential reports and would not commonly be generally made available. The reason for this is obvious. One cannot have confidential conversations with Ministers of foreign governments if one is to rush to the Press and give accounts of them or if one is to publish the record of conversation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition very properly drew attention to this point yesterday. He said that these reports should not be generally made available. However, having said that, I think I would be prepared to make them available to individual members who wished to study them and had an interest in doing so.

I would simply make the general comment that on my reading of them, the vice in what the honourable member for St George has said about the view of these governments is that his is a partial and misleading statement of what they said. I was in Singapore last Saturday and there is no doubt whatever that the Singapore Government was considerably embarrassed by what the honourable member for St George had done. Of course, this is the difficulty in the whole situation. Australia has been building up immense goodwill, trust and friendship in this area. They are very good friends of ours. They trust us. I know all the foreign ministers of the area personally. By interviewing a foreign minister, rushing out and giving a partial account to the Press of what has been said and making allegations such as that of bugging by the Australian Government of the Malaysian delegation in Canberra, the honourable member does nothing but damage to Australia’s interests. This is an issue far transcending the credibility of the honourable member for St George. He must have known that he was going to catch a headline with this allegation about bugging. What his motives were I leave out of question. But the fact is that he must have known, as we all know, the immense damage that is done to Australia’s interest by this type of activity. The allegation was totally unfounded. I suggest that Australia’s interests should be put first in any further consideration of this matter.

page 980

QUESTION

CITIZEN MILITARY FORCES

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for the Army considered the statement concerning the Citizen Military Forces made to this House last year by his predecessor? If the Minister has considered this question what action does he propose to arrest the alarming deterioration in the level of enlistments, the lack of suitable equipment and, more importantly, the general status of the Citizen Military Forces? I further ask the Minister: Is he aware of the discontent among senior members of the CMF who regard the Government’s apparent lack of interest as a significant factor in the declining morale of the Citizen Military Forces?

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

– I am aware of the statement made by my predecessor in regard to the new approach to the Citizen Military Forces. We are in the process at the moment of examining all aspects of this particular group of trainees. As one can well appreciate, this new system of training - to deal with that first - the ready reaction force, as it is termed, is going to produce quite a new regime in the system of military training for the CMF.- A transformation of this kind cannot be undertaken overnight. Many factors have to be considered. I can assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition -

Mr Barnard:

– You have had about 25 years.

Mr KATTER:

– Yes, but we have moved into a new phase both in regard to the CMF and in regard to the Australian Regular Army in this post-Vietnam period. I am sure be will have observed from my comments in the short time I have been in this portfolio that I personally intend to take a very lively and active interest in the CMF. I do not think that the Deputy Leader was really serious when he indicated that there was even a suggestion of our equipment not being up to world standards. Let me assure the honourable gentleman and all members of the Opposition that I made it my business to make a very detailed research into the world standing of the Australian military forces generally. Let me say - and I do not qualify this statement one iota - that, man for man and in the particular environment in which the Australian Army operates, it is second to none in the whole of the world.

page 981

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEART FOUNDATION

Mr NICHOLLS:

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the recent announcement that the National Heart Foundation of Australia might have to stop work because of a lack of funds? Is it a fact, as reported, that since the inception of the National Heart Foundation 11 years ago the Federal Government has given to date a total of $70,000 to the Foundation? Will the Prime Minister give urgent consideration to the granting of greater financial assistance to ensure that this important institution continues with its work?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– I have read Press reports in relation to this matter. I will be glad to convey the honourable member’s question to my colleague for a detailed reply. But I would make the general point that the Government’s method of financing medical research in Australia today is primarily through the National Health and Medical Research Council. The amounts made available by the Government have increased considerably from year to year. In fact, in every Budget we substantially increase the amount that we make available through that source for medical research. Generally speaking,’ the attitude - of the Council has been that when a particular area of research, for one reason or another, is able to attract funds from other sources - as the Heart Foundation has been very successful in doing, and I give the Foundation great credit for this - Government money should be directed to other areas of research which have not been able to attract money from the public and other sources to the same extent. This seems to be a very sensible procedure. In relation fo the detailed particulars in the honourable gentleman’s question, I will ask the Minister for Health to give him a reply.

page 981

QUESTION

BRITISH INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that in his Budget Speech yesterday the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Barber, announced the abolition of the voluntary programme on British investment in Australia? Would the Treasurer agree that this is a desirable change from Australia’s point of view? What effect does he consider it will have on the level of British investment in Australia?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The words of the Chancellor in his Budget Speech have been conveyed to me. Honourable members will remember that the voluntary restraints were introduced in 1966 as a temporary measure when the British balance of payments was under a very great strain. The restraints have remained in force since then. They applied to direct investment in Australia and to portfolio investment by institutions. It has been a source of difficulty over the years that it subsisted and I therefore strongly welcome the United Kingdom decision as a reflection of the co-operation between that country and Australia because it does remove this source of difficulty. More than that, I think it is important that at a time when we have changing relationships with the United Kingdom because of Britain’s impending entry into the European Economic Community it has a long term significance for us. As to the level of investment which may follow from the decision, I would not make any predictions on this because there are indications that the United Kingdom companies manage to change the sources which provide finance.

They went on to the Euro-dollar market and brought money to Australia to finance their direct investments. It may only change - I emphasise the word ‘may’ - the sources of money rather than the level of the money. So I will not make any predictions about it. Another important factor which I think must be taken into account when refusing to make predictions is that the United Kingdom has eased the investment conditions for EEC countries and that will enable the British investor to examine the relative desirability of his investments in the EEC and the 4 Sterling countries affected which, of course, are Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Ireland.

page 982

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister yet received a reply from the Premiers of the Australian States as to whether representatives of local government bodies are to be invited to attend the constitutional convention to consider Commonwealth, State and local government relationships? The right honourable gentleman will recall saying in reply to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition that he would refer the question to the Premiers of the States and that it would be up to them to decide what they wanted to do. As a constitutional review is a matter for all Australians and all sections of government, will the Prime Minister now advise the Premiers that the Australian Government will welcome the attendance of representatives of local government bodies at the proposed convention?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have already ensured that appropriate communications were made with the relevant State governments relating to local government authorities being represented at the convention. I have also pointed out in the House that no government other than the Australian Government can initiate a referendum for an alteration of the Constitution, and that consequently at some time or other it must be this Government that takes an initiative to look not only at the substance of changes but at the form m which we shall conduct inquiries, have a convention or have the matter dealt with by this House. I also said - I can but repeat this as I had hoped the honourable gentleman had listened to me on the last occasion - that this matter is now receiving the detailed consideration

Mr Uren:

– Why is the Prime Minister so pompous?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– If members of the Opposition do not want the answer I think it would be better for me to discontinue. As to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I recently said in answer to a question, and it bears repetition, that this whole problem is now in the hands of the Attorney-General. As soon as he has submitted a report to me it will be taken to the appropriate place, that is, the Cabinet.

page 982

QUESTION

GRENADES WASHED ASHORE

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. When grenades were washed ashore at Palm Beach recently did the Minister publicly deny that they were of types issued in the Navy? Did he subsequently admit that they were from HMAS ‘Jeparit’? How does he reconcile these 2 statements?

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

– The answer is very simple. The grenades were washed ashore at Palm Beach on Sunday morning, 12th March. During the day reports of this incident came through on the radio but no information was given to the Navy by the police to whom the matter was reported. So the Navy at that time took no action. On Monday the ‘Sun’ published an attack, which I can only describe as ill-balanced, claiming that the Navy, with the Army, had ducked for cover on this issue, that indeed they should have sent platoons of men to search the shores, and implied that these devices came from HMAS ‘Sydney’. I contradicted this statement emphatically, saying that the Navy had had no information from the civil authority and, had it been requested to assist, as in the past it would have spared no effort to mount the search and try to lessen the danger. When inquiries were later made it was discovered, mainly through a chance conversation overheard in a hotel and followed through by naval policeman, that a quantity of explosives bad been thrown overboard from HMAS ‘Jeparit’.

Mr Whitlam:

– Russian submarines.

Dr MACKAY:

– We could discuss that subject at the honourable gentleman’s convenience, and I would be delighted to do so. These particular explosives were not brought on board HMAS ‘Jeparit’ by naval personnel; but because it is a cargo ship, when it was unloaded at Vung Tau it was under Army supervision, Army gangs unloaded it, and the Army Provost Corps provided security. It so happens that in the Navy very strict precautions are taken to record all explosives that are officially brought on board a vessel and to account for their use. When it was found that some boxes of grenades apparently used to deter enemy divers and frogmen had been left on board by accident, these were thrown overboard at sea at the direction of the ship’s officers. One box was not discovered until the ship was close to Australia. It was then thrown overboard without authority and some of the explosives floated ashore. They were not naval issue. The Navy had no knowledge of this until inquiries were prosecuted in detail and so my statement was completely correct. These explosives have never been on naval issue and so were not of a type known to the Navy at that stage.

page 983

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked him by the honourable member for Macquarie. The right honourable gentleman will have seen the announcement by the New South Wales Premier on the composition of the delegation from the New South Wales Parliament to the proposed constitutional convention. I ask him whether the Premier of New South Wales or any other Premier has yet replied to him on the question of local government representation at this convention and, if so, what reply or replies has he received?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I would not expect replies to be received to the inquiries I made of the relevant governments. I see no reason why they should give me a reply.

page 983

QUESTION

LAMB EXPORTS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Deputy Prime Minister who is Minister for Trade and Industry. Given the prospects for increasing lamb production in Australia b the Minister in a position to indicate whether we can expect to find outlets for more Australian lamb in the United States of America? Is Australia embarking on a lamb promotion effort in the United States? If so, what is the latest position?

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

– The United States of America is an important market for our lamb, taking something like 30 per cent of the exports. This market has developed mainly in the last 4 years. Its value has increased from something less than $lm in 1967 to $8.5m now. I think the growth of that market will depend largely upon effective promotion. There is a joint promotion arrangement between the Australian Meat Board, producers in New Zealand and the United States and I am sure that this will lead to continuing and increasing sales in the United States. With respect to Canada, the northern neighbour of the United States, we have been doing quite well on that market, although sales declined last year. I am optimistic that this year and in future years, as promotion gets under way, we will do better on that market also.

Mcmahon ministry

Mr daly:

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the distinguished former Minister for the Navy, the honourable member for Moreton, in which he stated that the Government’s popularity was at its lowest point for 30 years and in which he called for the reappointment of the right honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Wentworth to the Ministry? If so, is it the Prime Ministers intention, in the interests of unity and solidarity in his once great party, to accept this advice? Furthermore, in view of the state of the economy and public concern at the disarray and disunity in the Government ranks at State and Federal levels, will he, in the national interests, seek an immediate- “

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point is that this is not a subject that has Government prominence nor is it a question that should be asked in this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The question asked relates to the Ministry. Whether the Prime Minister accepts advice or not is a matter for the Prime Minister. It is a matter of which he has charge.

Mr DALY:

– 1 repeat the final section of my question. Furthermore, in view of the state of the economy and public concern at the disarray and disunity in the Government ranks at State and Federal levels, will the Prime Minister in the national interest seek an immediate dissolution of the Parliament so that the people may replace the whole Ministry?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– If we are to go through a catechism of this kind in the national Parliament, wasting the time of the Parliament I might just as well ask the question whether the Leader of the Opposition remembers his attacks during the 1966 election upon his then Leader on the subject of the Australian presence in Vietnam. I might also ask the honourable member for Grayndler whether he remembers his persistent attacks upon the Leader of the Opposition on the question of whether or not the approach of the Leader of the Opposition to the immigration problem fits in with the Labor Party’s platform. In other words, what I want to point out is the way in which question time in this House is being steadily eroded by questions of a frivolous nature and questions which waste the time of the House when what we should be doing here is building up the reputation and status of the House to make it the great national forum that it should be. I can assure all honourable members and anyone else who is listening that it is the Government’s objective to do all it can to sustain the national dignity of this House and to make our contribution to the welfare and development of the country. I hope that when the time does come and voting takes place in Grayndler the people will be sensible and the honourable member will not be back after that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call the next honourable member I would like to say that it is my responsibility in this House to afford privileges to members under the Standing Orders. Those privileges will continue to be afforded providing questions are in order and in accordance with the Standing Orders.

page 984

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the honourable member for Reid asked whether the Government would take action to control what he called the over building of the central business districts of our cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, and to control major insurance companies and other forms of foreign investment for this purpose. As the research and planning for this type of investment takes a long time to mature, does the Prime Minister think that commercial and industrial construction now needs control in Australia?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– A little over a year ago it was thought that there were 3 areas of excess demand in the Australian economy and one of them was in the field of commercial and industrial building, particularly in the capital cities. However, that state of affairs no longer exists and consequently the Government will take no action to reduce the amount of building and especially the number of approvals at the present time. In other words, the best analysis one can get shows that there is not an excessive demand on resources and we would not like to take any action which would reduce in any way the increase in employment that we want to see occurring with the growth in the national economy. It was on that basis that I dealt with the question asked by the honourable member for Reid yesterday. While we do have a problem which is being analysed in very great detail by the Department of the Treasury, in specific terms we do not think that the capital inflow relating to the provision of funds for buildings of a commercial and industrial kind should be dealt with in isolation because it does not present a problem to the Government.

page 984

QUESTION

MARALINGA

Mr WALLIS:

– I ask the Minister for Supply whether his attention has been drawn to the deplorable circumstances concerning the §12m town of Maralinga in South Australia, established in the 1950s as a joint British and Australian testing area. Can the Minister say why this valuable asset has been allowed to depreciate to the extent that it has? Does the British Government still retain an interest in Maralinga? If not, can the Minister say what is proposed for its future? Have approaches been made by the South Australian authorities requesting a transfer of the town’s facilities for a useful and humane purpose? If approaches have been made, will he confer with the Minister for Defence to ensure that if the town is not to be retained for its original purpose, alternative proposals will be considered as soon as possible?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Maralinga Prohibited Area, which comes under the control of the Department of Supply, is an area of about 30,000 square miles which was the subject of a land grant from the South Australian Government. Certain small areas there are still unsafe for long term occupancy as a result of the testing of nuclear weapons in that region some years ago. but the matter is under consideration on a government to government basis between the Premier of South Australia and the Prime Minister. That consideration is being carried on urgently at present and I am hopeful that the Governments, will be able to arrive at an early decision in that respect

There has been a good deal of comment recently about this matter, particularly in the South Australian Press. I think it is right to say that the great bulk of the money which was spent on the establishment of the township there was provided by the United Kingdom Government. Those assets were handed over to Australia in 1968. Shortly afterwards the Government concluded that Australia had no defence use for those facilities. That is the reason for the present situation. Representations have been received from the South Australian Government and the matter is under active consideration.

page 985

QUESTION

CHINA

Mr BARNARD:

– On 9th March I asked the Prime Minister a question without notice in which I drew attention to a statement by Senator Sim, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, that the right honourable gentleman’s last statements on China were unwise, in fact a stupidity. The Foreign Minister subsequently answered the question and told this House that he had read the rather inflammatory report but had not been able to check on its correctness or otherwise. I ask the Foreign Minister whether he has now done so. What explanation can he offer for that extraordinary statement?

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

– My understanding is that Senator Sim has said that he was incorrectly reported. I will have a discussion with him and then reply to the honourable member.

page 985

QUESTION

STANDARD HOURS OF WORK

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Labour and National Service aware of the results of a gallup poll conducted in February 1972 which indicated that the majority of Australians wish to preserve a 40- hour working week? What action does the Government propose to take in respect of any claims which may be made to reduce working hours in furtherance of the policies for the early introduction of a shorter working week adopted by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions?

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

– I am aware that the gallup poll to which the honourable gentleman has referred indicated that only 13 per cent of Australians favoured the immediate introduction of a 35-hour working week, and that 60 per cent of respondents wished to retain the present 40-hour week. Of course, the results of that poll are totally consistent with the frequently stated objections of this Government to any reduction in the standard hours of work. Equally, the results of the poll are totally inconsistent with the irresponsible approach adopted by the Opposition on this issue.

Mr Hansen:

– What about a poll on national service?

Mr LYNCH:

– If you want to ask me a question about that subject I will be very pleased to answer it. The Government is confident that the demand for labour will be strong in the months ahead. Any reduction in size of the working week would require the working of overtime at penalty rates and this, of course, would add considerably to wage-cost pressures and to the inflationary spiral. All that the Opposition has been putting forward in this and so many other areas is a policy which would conduce to inflation; certainly it is not a policy which would inhibit the present inflationary pressures in the Australian community.

It has been estimated that the application of a 35-hour week throughout industry would add in excess of 9 per cent to unit costs of production, and the impact of that statement I believe will be self-evident to the Australian community. May I conclude by saying that from what I have indicated it is clear that this Government stands strongly opposed to any reduction in the standard hours of work and that should a case of this type come before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission we would certainly utilise our right to intervene in the strongest possible way.

page 986

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– Mr Speaker, may I make a personal explanation?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. Yesterday in this House in an exchange with the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) I said, in relation to some of his statements:

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.

My remarks are correctly reported in the green proofs of my speech; they appear correctly in the green proofs. Unhappily, in the printing in the daily Hansard the word ‘not’ was omitted, rather changing the sense. So I now take this opportunity to correct page 887 of Hansard to make it accord with what appears on the green proofs. It should read:

It is not true that I gave him exoneration in the way that he suggested.

Let me say this: To my knowledge this is the first time that an error of this kind has appeared in Hansard, and I should like to put on record my appreciation of the accuracy with which Hansard usually records these things. In this case I think it is the printer and not Hansard who is responsible.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MORRISON:

– I do. I reject entirely the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) that I gave a partially correct interpretation of various interviews overseas. The views that I expressed are an accurate reflection of the records compiled by officers of his own Department, as will be noted by any unbiased reader of the records. Only today his Department has forwarded to me additional copies of these records which I would be happy to make available to honourable members on both sides of the House under the privileged conditions which the Minister has indicated.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL (Mallee)Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– Yes. Last night when speaking in this House the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said, as reported in Hansard: the answer which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) gave to a question in this House on 8th 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.

I interjected and said:

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

The honourable member for Prospect said:

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.

Sir, it is a vivid imagination. I did not mention ‘anthem’ at all, although I hope that our anthem will continue. My explanation is this: No-one suggested that I should ask the question and no-one assisted me in the wording of the question. I can assure the, House that my only reason for asking the question was that I honour our flag and am against any change in its design. I can assure the House that my question was not directed against anyone, and that I was grossly misrepresented by the honourable member for Prospect.

page 987

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES AND RESOURCES: FOREIGN CONTROL

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER - I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The increasing control of Australian industries and resources by foreign companies.

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 CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– In raising this matter of public importance I should like first to state that the Australian Labor Party is not opposed to foreign investment as such, but it does recognise that foreign investment requires substantial scrutiny from time to time and not just an odd glance at the level of reserves which seems to have been the policy of the present Government, at least until the time when the previous Prime Minister made his famous ‘tickle my tummy’ speech some few years ago. What one should ask is what has happened since. In speaking on the evening before last at a dinner given by the Australian Mining Industry Council, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) stated:

The Treasury at present has in hand an indepth study on the whole subject of foreign investment m Australia.

I would say it is a very belated attempt to undertake an in-depth study. He continued:

I do not wish in any way to forecast what, if any. changes in the Government’s policy might eventuate as a result of its consideration of this study. I can, however, say that one of the aspects we will be looking at will be whether the very high level of capital inflow we have experienced over the past couple of years poses difficulties, for the domestic management of the economy and, if so, whether there is need for a change in policies to forestall any danger of that kind.

I should have thought that the last report of the Reserve Bank of Australia made it clear enough that there were some difficulties, arising out of the rapid and uncontrolled flow of capita] into this country, facing the Reserve Bank in its efforts to implement a monetary policy that it was thought to have imposed.

Yesterday in answer to a question from one of my colleagues the Prime Minister referred to a statement by the Reserve Bank in February 1972. Through the courtesy of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) I have obtained a copy of that document. It shows the capital movements and the exchange control approvals for the period ended December 1971. I want to refer to one or two matters in the document because the document implies that there are still very significant gaps in the information available and in fields in which information ought to be available but in which apparently it is not. What the document shows - I recognise the fact that what are called ‘approvals’ may not eventuate, but at least one can make some comparison between the level in one year as against the level in the previous year - is that during 1971 approvals for inward capital movements totalled $2, 152m compared with $1,1 56m in 1970, an increase of approximately $ 1,000m in a space of 12 months. The approvals totalling $2, 152m represented from 6 per cent to 7 per cent of the gross national product.

The tables in the document go on to show what has been evident enough - that there has been an increase in aggregate, both in what is described as direct investment and in portfolio investment, and that relatively the latter one had risen more in the last 12 months than had direct investment. The document goes on to state:

Enterprises in Australia which can be grouped under the heading ‘Banking, Finance and Insurance’ accounted for almost 40 per cent of the increase in aggregate approvals to borrow abroad in 1971 compared with 1970: ‘Wholesale and Retail Trade and Other Commerce’ enterprises accounted for about one-quarter of the increase and ‘Minerals, Mining and Processing’ enterprises for about a further 20 per cent.

Then this final observation was made:

The ‘Banking, Finance and Insurance’ group is largely composed of financial intermediaries and complete information about the end use of their borrowings is not available.

I point to that first as a very simple example of a deficiency in information that ought to be available, lt was also said in February of last year - over a year ago - by the previous Prime Minister that he thought that a lot of money was finding its way into property development in Australia. That ought to be apparent enough from the White Paper last year on the national income, which showed that whilst there was a decline in real terms - the figures are shown in the latest issue of the Treasury ‘Bulletin Notes’, which is that for October 1971 - in housing and flat construction in 1970-71 as against the position in the previous year, the construction of other new building, particularly what is described as private building, rose by some 22 per cent. There is no doubt that a large part of the money that accounted for that increase was a part of the inflow of capital from overseas.

That is one deficiency already in the information available. I shall instance another one. I remind honourable members that my proposition deals with not only industry but also natural resources. Before this Parliament rose last year I placed a question on the notice paper concerning petroleum titles. I did not get an answer to that question until the beginning of this session. The question, which was asked of the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) and which was No. 4392, and the answer to it appear at page 76 of Hansard of 22nd February 1972. Among other things, I asked:

  1. What is the total area in Australia, onshore and off-shore, under petroleum titles in each of the descriptions of (a) authorising, (b) prospecting and (c) production.
  2. What areas in each description are held by (a) Australian companies and (b) non-Australian companies.

The answer I received to that question some months later was in these terms:

  1. and (2) The information requested by the honourable member will not be available until an examination at present being made in the Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department has been completed. The information will be forwarded to the honourable member when it becomes available.

The development of these national resources is important to Australia. Therefore why do we not know who has the leases, whether they are prospecting or production leases, and the. division of the leases as between local and foreign interests? I submit that it is appalling that such a situation should exist in Australia. No indepth study is required at a Treasury level to see that a deficiency already exists. According to a document entitled ‘Overseas Investment 1970-71 (Preliminary)’ - as late as 20th December 1971 the situation was still a preliminary one and there has been no further figure since that date - foreign capital flowed into Australia in the last 3 years at the rate of $ 1,021m in 1968-69, $l,025m in 1969-70 and $l,493m in 1970-71”. We do not have in Australia as yet anything that could be called a map of the totality of foreign investment in this country, whether it is in primary industry, mining and quarrying, manufacturing industries or in the dubious new venture of property development. We do not know by a margin of almost several billion dollars whether it is of a magnitude of $8,000m or, as some people have estimated it, somewhere in the region of $1 1,000m. That is not good enough, particularly in view of the critical stage, of our development at present. At stake is the economic sovereignty, if you like, of Australia. i draw the attention of honourable members to a surreptitious document that was apparently circulated in other parts of the world as well as in Australia. It is described as ‘A Citizen’s Guide to the Gray Report’ and comes from a Canadian source. Presumably the Gray Report is not supposed to have seen the. light of day yet but somebody obtained, a copy of it and printed it in the form of a booklet. I wish to quote what it states at the beginning about the problem. I suggest that the problem there is equally the same as the problem in Australia. It states:

The high and growing degree of foreign, and particularly US, control of Canadian business activity has led to a Canadian industrial structure which largely reflects the growth priorities of foreign corporations.

It has as well led to the establishment of truncated’ firms for which many important activities are performed abroad by the parent company, with the result that the development of Canadian capacities or activities in these areas is stultified.

These developments have made it more difficult for the Government to control the domestic national economic environment. They have also influenced the development of the social, cultural and political environment in Canada.

The increasing internationalisation of some important sectors of industry and the growth of the multinational enterprise as an institutional development of foreign direct investment add a further dimension of complexity to the Government’s ability to control the national economic environment.

I submit that h is not possible in Australia at the moment to pursue a properly integrated economic policy serving the general national interests. According to this surreptitious document, the Gray Committee said that there were 3 broad policy alternatives which the Government might adopt to deal with the problem of foreign ownership and domestic control. They were:

  1. the introduction of a screening process, i.e. a government agency with the power to negotiate for better performance from foreign direct investors-

For instance, the further processing of raw materials - and with the power to block investment that does not make a net contribution to the Canadian economy or that does not accord with the objectives of the Government;

  1. the delineation of further key sectors in which foreign ownership would be regulated;
  2. the introduction of across-the-board ownership rules, (e.g. 51 per cent Canadian ownership) and other structural changes relating to the use of Canadian managers and directors.

The document concludes with this comment:

Particular attention has been given to defining a potential role for a screening process, as during the course of the analysis, it emerged as probably the most effective and least costly way of dealing with the problems.

I submit that that is what is required in Australia. I wish to indicate in what will be almost my final comments what the platform of the Australian Labor Party provides as far as this important question is concerned. The following policy was approved at the twenty-ninth conference of the Australian Labor Party in Launceston:

Establish clear guidelines for overseas investors, for the benefit both of those investors and of the Australian community.

Overseas investment in Australia to be encouraged only where it introduces new technology and expertise, includes plans for Australian participation in the enterprises, and/or otherwise shows itself to be in Australia’s national interest.

I submit that at the moment we do not have clear guidelines in relation to this important element of our total economic development. For that reason, we have raised for discussion this matter of public importance today at least to draw attention to this situation and to hope that we will not get documents but that we will begin to get decisions.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I am glad that we had the ringing peroration of the last sentence of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) or I would have wondered what was the the purpose of this debate. The honourable member started off by discussing the gaps in information. There is nothing new in that. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) made a speech a week or so ago which I read in which he drew attention to the lack of certain information. What he did, I think, was to point out the need for more complete information about capital flow between Australia and overseas countries. There can be no question about the need for such information and I should point out that substantial improvements are already in train in this area. The Reserve Bank is making urgent efforts to expand and upgrade its collections of data on capital movements. At the same time, the Commonwealth Statisitician is extending his range of private overseas investment estimates. Last year, a new survey of overseas borrowings by companies in Australia was commenced. A new survey of nominees which will enable the Statistician more reliably to estimate portfolio investment from abroad is being undertaken and further new collections are now receiving intensive examination. These various advances will, in time, overcome important gaps in our knowledge of overseas investment in Australia.

Apart from his final sentence, the speech of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports really boiled down to the fact that we have gaps in information and this must be acknowledged. He also quoted from what he termed was a surreptitious report of the Gray Committee in Canada which, as I understand it, has not yet received publicity and has not been considered by the Canadian Government. Our Government has set in train an intensive study and this was acknowledged by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports during his speech. We have given this study high priority. Last week I set out the main lines of the inquiry. The honourable gentleman referred to a speech made by the Prime

Minister (Mr McMahon) to the Mining Council this week. However, when he made his formal announcement in the House a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a point with which I concur, namely, that it is a proper vehicle for debate when we have the White Paper. Of course, the discussion of a matter of public importance or, as it is commonly called, an urgency motion, just is not a suitable vehicle for debating such a complex subject as this with its very great magnitude of consideration. To have a debate that is meaningful requires factual analysis and that is what the White Paper sets out to do.

That having been said, there are some elements which are known and those that are known must be seen in the totality of the situation. This again is another reason for the study - not merely to permit debate but to permit full knowledge before the debate occurs. What are some of the elements which are known? Capital inflow is at record levels. We can show this perhaps succinctly by the February official reserve assets analysis by the Commonwealth Statistician which indicates that our official reserves stand at $3,027m, which was an increase of $156m in February. For the 8 months of the financial year the increase was $747m. If that is compared with the same 8 months of the previous financial year it will be found that the increase then was $188m. The magnitude of the increase is apparent just by the stating of the figures. In February net apparent private capital inflow was about $190m. In January it was down but if January and February are averaged out it is found that the inflow comes to about $140m, which was the rate on average at which it was running in the first half of the financial year. So it would appear that there is no slackening.

Then, of course, there was the Reserve Bank’s analysis of exchange control approvals. I am surprised that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, who has seen this report and referred to it, did not acknowledge the very great advance in information that that document represents. I see that he is nodding his head and I appreciate his acknowledgment . of it because I believe that it does add a great deal to our sum of information. The

Bank’s paper deals with approvals of inward flow of capital and it draws attention to the fact that in the calendar year 1970 the approvals for inflow were $1,1 56m, whereas in the calendar year 1971 they were $2, 152m, an increase of $ 1,000m. This rise of $ 1,000m was entirely accounted for in borrowed funds. This is a very significant change and a change about which conclusions ought not to be jumped to, although a general line of conclusion can be clearly seen and that is the difference between funds directly invested gaining equity interest as compared with borrowed funds which gain no equity interest.

One of the interesting points that comes out of this report is the immense growth in the borrowed funds of Australian enterprises as compared with overseas enterprises. True it is that overseas enterprise borrowings were $900m-odd but the borrowing by Australian owned enterprises was $700m-odd and represented for the Australian owned enterprises a sixfold increase in their borrowings in that year. Of course, one must acknowledge the very significant role played by the merchant banking sector in putting Australian enterprise in touch with the totality of the world money market:

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred to the 3 categories - wholesale and retail trade, minerals and mining and processing, and the biggest group of banking, finance and insurance. As the Reserve Bank pointed ‘ out, there are no details of onward lending! The honourable member said that this is a very great gap. Well, it is a gap - that must be acknowledged - but I think the honourable gentleman is on dangerous ground if he says it can be cured simply by wishing it to be cured. There are a great number of difficulties involved in that. Obviously, there would need to be great co-operation from the financial intermediaries in their on-borrowing and, of course, the onborrowing may go through several hands. The tracing of this borrowing would not be easy. Also it would be a major statistical exercise. I do not say that it cannot be done, nor do I say that it should not be done but we must acknowledge the difficulty which is involved.

The new borrowings were for longer periods as 1971 progressed. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has the Bank’s report and he will see in that report how the length of time for repayment of the borrowed funds had grown quite dramatically as 1971 progressed and apparently, in 1972, the high levels of longer term borrowing have continued. The increase of the inflow largely reflects this increased borrowed money both from Australian owned and overseas owned companies and the Treasury paper will examine these and other facts and direct attention will be given to benefits and costs.

In relation to benefits and costs, let me set out some of the benefits. It increases our capital resources and adds immensely to the capital formation available in this country, without which there is no doubt that our advancement in the post-war years would have been seriously retarded and the advancement during the 1960s which has been so great and in the 1970s which promises to be even greater would not have been able to be achieved and, the general standards of living of our community would have been consequentially less. So that is one advantage. Another advantage is that it disseminates productivity increases. It has had a very pervasive influence on the totality of our industrial complex and the diversification of it. It produces technological spin-offs and of course, importantly, it provides market connections. A very important part of the partnership arrangements that have been made with some of our basic industries - more so than with the manufacturing industries - has been to provide market outlets. A perfect example of that is aluminium.

Some of the costs of foreign investment are the direct foreign exchange cost of servicing overseas capital and the indirect costs through Increases in foreign ownership and control. For example, in 1969-70 company income payable overseas was one-third, compared with one-quarter in the mid-1960s. The implied growth of foreign ownership extends the area where Australia’s national interest and the interests of foreign companies and governments may not coincide. As far as capital inflow is concerned we have a benefit. On the other side of the coin are the costs. What must be national policy is to make sure that in the ultimate we benefit rather than debit. The measurement of how much we must benefit is difficult to assess. I think that .the guidelines that the honourable gentleman is pointing out as the Labor Parry’s policy are far too constrictive. They seem to be pitched on the basis of analysing every individual item of inflow to make sure that that individual item of inflow would constitute a benefit. I very seriously doubt the capacity of a country to put every individual investment through that analysis. But that is a matter for consideration.

Some possible conflicts of interest I should mention are the restrictions imposed on exporting of foreign subsidiaries; directives to such subsidiaries to favour suppliers in the parent company’s country; attempts to avoid taxes otherwise payable in Australia; and insufficient use of Australian technical and managerial staff. However, let it not be forgotten that overseas owned enterprises are in an important sense subject to Australian control. They operate within the general framework of Australian law and Government policies. In the very many conversations I have had with people from overseas I have found that they are very anxious to co-operate entirely with whatever Government policies may be. Because most of the recent rise in capital inflow has been in borrowings, the impact of the total flow on foreign ownership and control today may be different from what it would have been before when there was not that borrowing content.

An important issue raised by the recent sharp increase in borrowings abroad, both by locally and overseas owned firms, is that Australian monetary policy becomes more susceptible to influences from abroad than it has been in the past. This may aggravate the difficulties of economic management. It is a question to which the Treasury study will pay particular attention. I do not propose to come to any conclusions now. The broad structure of the Treasury paper will be measurement of overseas investment, the statistical information, overseas investment and the balance of payments, overseas investment and the economy, overseas ownership and control of Australian industry and resources, and overseas investment and domestic economic management. I hope that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, with whom we have had many happy associations, is not suggesting that we should take immediate action now by bringing on this debate. I am sure he does not suggest that, simply because he cannot say what action the Australian Labor Party would take. He mentioned some guidelines but he has not submitted those guidelines to anything like the examination they require. I see that he nods in agreement, and I agree that he correctly does so.

Surely this is no time for hasty decisions. It is a time to acknowledge the problems, get the information, have the public debate and expose the issues so that we can have the national interest examined by those people who benefit or suffer from decisions taken in relation to the national interest. That is my purpose and my objective. I hope that the Treasury paper will be available by the end of next month but, as the honourable gentleman would know, it is a very deep, complex issue and we must make sure that we traverse, all the avenues that would be wanted by the Parliament in order to pursue the debate. It is a big subject. I hope I can get the paper by the end of next month, but do not press me unduly.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Oh no, we will not press you unduly, Mr Treasurer. We will give you another 20 years like the 20 years you have already had. We have listened to a speech which bas no element of energy, urgency or interest, which of course is characteristic of this Government and of its predecessors. The growth of foreign control of the Australian economy is rapid and disturbing. In presenting this matter of public importance the Opposition says that the matter is urgent. We do so for the second time. The first time we said it was in 1967. Increasingly and driven unwillingly like a boy to school, the Government is now being concerned. It wants more information. It must not proceed rapidly. The matter is too complex. Of course we know that the Government has no intention of doing anything about this, and that is why we have raised this matter of public importance. By now there are very few Australians who have not expressed concern about it. The former Minister for

Trade and Industry, Sir John McEwen, dramatic in all things, was more vivid and disturbed on this subject than on any other.

A former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), noted for saying things but not for action - in government at any rate - has made something of a reputation for himself as an Australian by his warnings about the effects of foreign economic power in Australia. But it is only a reputation. He had plenty of opportunity as Prime Minister to do something, and he did nothing. He is now able to live on that reputation, when he has no responsibility for action. Now even the present Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) has joined the growing band of those who are worried about foreign money. But nothing has been done. Governments that give effect to money power, as this one does, cannot ever control money, and the problem remains. Not only does it remain but also it rapidly becomes more acute. The official figure is that 25 per cent of all manufacturing industry is now foreign owned. This is a low, conservative figure. Control, which does not need ownership, would probably be higher. Furthermore, the figure is growing by at least 1 per cent a year. It is highly probable that if conditions remain unchanged half Australian manufacturing industry will be foreign controlled within 10 years.

Inside manufacturing industry the situation is more critical. The big companies are even more foreign controlled than manufacturing industry is as a whole. Of 299 large companies in manufacturing, mining and oil, 47 per cent are now foreign controlled. The commanding heights of the Australian economy are already in foreign hands. Within the manufacturing and mining fields the position of key industries is even more critical. In the case of motor vehicles 90 per cent of the industry is foreign controlled. In the case of non-ferrous metals 85 per cent is foreign controlled. For mineral oils the figure is 80 per cent; for industry and heavy chemicals it is 78 per cent; for pharmaceutical and toilet preparations it is 76 per cent; for metals mining it is 70 per cent and for fuel mining it is 40 per cent The speed with which foreign control increases amongst the large companies is shown in the rise in 5 years in metals mining from 53 per cent to 70 per cent and in fuel mining from 18 per cent to 40 per cent.

Certainly the Opposition’s statement is correct. There is an increasing control of Australian resources and industry. What is wrong with such a high level and such a rapid increase? I do not believe there is anything wrong with foreigners as foreigners or that there is much difference in the aims and desires between foreigners and Australians. I have no phobias about foreigners. But foreigners can and do have interests which may not coincide with Australian interests. Foreign banks - and British banks are foreign banks - have always been and still are powerful in Australia. They are invariably on the side of a restrictive financial policy. It was their power that brought the depression of the 1930s to Australia. The Australian banks, especially the Bank of New South Wales, advocated a more liberal financial policy. If they had prevailed Australia would have lost hundreds of millions of pounds less in the depression of the 1930s. This can, and to some extent, will happen again. Always the foreign financial interests favour a tight money policy. They sell money and they want to keep up its price. This puts them on the side of a good money policy and against a high employment policy. Money, not jobs, is their interest. Hence foreign control in Australia is a tight money control and Australian employment and even economic growth must come second. It is not in Australia’s interests to have economic policy determined or influenced unduly by foreign money dealers, and it is at present.

It is true that foreign capital inflow has probably produced a greater rate of growth than Australia would otherwise have had but foreign capital has also been one of the main causes of inflation and of unbalanced resource allocation. Foreign capital has been a vital factor in the urban concentration. Money - much of it foreign - has poured into the cities because the owners of that money were mainly interested in pushing up land and property values which they already owned. Foreign capital has played an equally vital role in polluting the environment. Polluting indus tries are profitable industries and foreign capital goes for the highest profits. The new religion - economic growth - has become too much of a faith. It is true that foreign capital inflow has allowed an even higher rate of economic growth but how much higher? Can anyone claim it is even 1 per cent for it is certainly not 2 per cent or more? But the point is that Australia might have been a better place to live in if we had obtained a different allocation of resources.

Today, and more and more in the future, the critical question will not be the rate of growth but the composition of growth. It will not be how much is done but what is done. It is far more difficult to regulate foreign money than Australian money with respect to the environment, cultural developments and public interest. But taking foreign capital inflow at its face value which economists and bookkeepers usually do, capital inflow is favourable to growth because it gives a country more foreign funds than it could earn from trade. Leaving aside the fact that a large proportion of those funds are spent on imports which make no contribution to economic growth the passage of time makes a vital difference. In the first few years the inflow of capital generally much exceeds the outflow of dividends and profits, then the outflow of dividends and profits tends to catch up.

I will not weary the House with statistics but there are plenty of them which show that about 90 per cent of the inflow of capital in a normal year is equalled by the outflow of dividends and by undistributed profits. The trend is for them to come together and before very long the outflow will exceed the inflow. There are 3 things to say about this: Firstly, inflow will fluctuate much more than outflow in inflationary times but in recession times outflow may rise critically. Secondly, it is sound to conclude that capital inflow is speculative and inflationary and that its net value to Australia is falling. Thirdly, the level of foreign capital is already such that any Australian government in times of recession would be vulnerable to the power of foreign investors to cut the inflow of capital or to withdraw funds. Australian governments in those circumstances would have their backs to the economic wall. We should not make the wall any higher than it is. That would be sound advice from a national point of view.

Furthermore it is realistic to point out that much of what is called ‘foreign capital’ has never come to Australia at all in terms of funds. In fact, it is money obtained here from Australian consumers and it is retained in profits. A large, significant and growing part of every piece of plant and every building with the name of a foreign company over it has been acquired in Australia by money obtained in Australia as a result of the monopolistic powers exercised in this country.

There are many other disadvantages of foreign capital. I will not have time in this debate to refer to them all. One is that foreign capital restricts export capacity. There are thousands of franchises and agreements - many thousands of them are known to the Department of Trade and Industry - which prevent industries in Australia which have in them foreign capital from exporting overseas at all or to certain markets. In some cases the development of industry is prevented. Control of the film industry means that we have no film industry in Australia and we will never have it unless something is done about this. Enough has been said to show the damage that has been done.

Some things can be done about this. First of all, there must be an inquiry. Perhaps a Senate committee will exercise the desirable role in this respect. Secondly, laws which say that certain basic or key industries shall not become foreign controlled must be enacted. The concrete pipes case has put the power of the Commonwealth in this respect beyond doubt. Thirdly, the organisation of government capital and private capital, too, if this is agreeable, must come about to ensure that basic resources and industries are Australian controlled. The introduction of government capital into these, I believe, will be essential. Among the essential industries would be banking, the so-called merchant banking and consumer finance. Among the essential industries, also would be the mass media. Another step that could be taken is to gain the know-how and technique which is so essential to economic progress. This can be obtained by management contracts from countries like Japan, Switzerland and

Sweden which specialise in these matters. We can get all that is needed in know-how without selling out the control of our industries. Australia has not much time left It is now time for action.

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

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

Mr ROBINSON:
Assistant Minister assisting the Postmaster-General · Cowper · CP

– The Government is taking a responsible course of action on foreign investment in Australia. It has investigated the position and a White Paper will be presented to the Parliament. What the Opposition is attempting to do this afternoon is to pre-judge the situation and to undermine the confidence of the people of Australia in our economy. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) could well be described as a disciple of gloom who has run right across the board with anything but the facts. The Government is fulfilling its responsibilities in this vital matter in the best interests of the Australian community. The Government has not sold out the interests of this country and claims to the contrary by the Opposition are a sheer fabrication. It is vital that confidence be maintained in the Australian economy both internally and externally. Of course, the first things we find today are the utterances which can be described as nothing more nor less than the kind of propaganda that would scare off required foreign investment in this country.

We have achieved a situation of progress and development and despite what has been said by the Opposition the fact remains that without a content of foreign investment in this country we could not have had the progress which we have enjoyed. However the Government and all those who support the Government on this side of the House do not leave it at that. In any discussion on such a complex issue it is reasonable that we should think in terms of the implications and that we should at all costs avoid the danger of an emotional approach. The issue can very easily be clouded. We must be objective when we look at the total scene and it is for this reason that a study by the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Treasury has been undertaken on a basis that will produce the facts without fiction and this study will produce the answers required for a proper debate and a proper assessment as mentioned by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) earlier in this debate. I think it has been overlooked that a few months ago the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) announced that an up to date publication of the directory of overseas investment in Australian manufacturing industries would shortly be issued. Again, this is a document which will give the facte and not fiction on this very important issue.

Mr Grassby:

– What is the fiction?

Mr ROBINSON:

– Anyone who has studied comments made by the honourable member for Riverina in recent times will find very great difficulty in assessing what he has had to say on this issue. He has challenged a sell-out particularly in investment in land in Australia. Yet, in the Northern Territory not one acre of land has in fact been sold. I agree that land has been made available on leasehold but this was for developmental purposes. One could go to other parts of Australia and look at what has been done. These things could not have been achieved without the know-how or the use of foreign capital and the energy that is generated with the use of it. Again, the Government does not leave it at that. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the Treasurer and every responsible member on this side of the House in recent times who has spoken on this issue has said in cogent terms that there is a problem to be dealt with. There is no doubt at all that the Government is approaching this matter in a sane and proper manner. Yet, of course, we hear these disciples of gloom claim all sorts of extravagant things.

The honourable member for Lalor said a few moments ago that 25 per cent of the ownership of manufacturing interests in this country was held through foreign investment. He may have access to some documentation that gives him a basis for this calculation, but I would rather wait for the factual documents which will be brought to this House in a matter of weeks to see what the real position is. Overseas investment makes up about only 11 per cent of the total investment funds in Australia, and that I believe is a reasonable proportion. I say to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and others who want to be extreme critics that they should have a good look at the facts before they become so prepared to assert things on this issue.

Let us look at some of the specifics. It is true that some industries have a very high and perhaps undesirable content of overseas investment in one way or another, and dangers arise from this. Damage can be done to the national prospects and future development if things are allowed to run too far in a particular direction, but the Government’s record in this matter is very clear indeed. What was done in the case of the Nabarlek uranium find? Within hours a decision was announced by the Government. What was done in the case of MLC Ltd? Action was taken within hours. But in taking this action the Government has not created a totally obstructive approach to gaining the interest of foreign participation in this country, the kind of participation which can be seen to be desirable. Let us take one of Australia’s greatest public companies, Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. What do we find? It is the butt of criticism from the Opposition at every opportunity it wishes to take.

Mr Grassby:

– Is it an Australian company?

Mr ROBINSON:

– The honourable member for Riverina asks whether it is an Australian company. It is one of Australia’s greatest public companies, and he knows it. If one wants to deny the facts in these matters, it is very easy to do so merely by putting up a smokescreen. This is what we find happening too much in relation to this total question. We want to get down to the real facts of the matter so damage will not be done to development projects by half baked proposals. We want to see whether a need for action will be revealed by the study now being undertaken. I think there is good reason to believe that there will be. We want to see proposals put forward in this Parliament which will be effective in the national interest and not restrictive in terms of future prospects of maintaining our economy and ensuring that we are able to maintain the work force in full employment.

It is hypocrisy for the honourable member for Lalor to say here today that there is a danger in this country in terms of employment and prospects because of foreign investment and because of what he described as the risk of a monopolistic approach, which he asserts can influence the monetary policies and the financial approaches made by this Government. Nothing could be further from the truth, and he knows it. I believe that the Government should be commended for its management of the economy. If we look at the total scene we will see very clearly that if we had acted in a more precipitate fashion towards foreign investment in the last 12 months there would have been added a restrictive element which could well have made the total situation less favourable for every section of the community. Would that have been the time at which to introduce restrictive measures? Certainly it would not. The Government’s action has been a correct action. The Government’s approach has been one of mature, objective and responsible administration, and any criticism of it is certainly badly based.

Mr Cope:

– Tell us what McEwen said about it.

Mr ROBINSON:

– The honourable member interjects but he fails to recall the great impetus which was given by the creation of the Australian Industries Development Corporation, the first real action ever taken by any government in this country to meet the kinds of problems that are being debated today. No similar proposition was ever put forward by a socialist administration, and I am certain that in the future as well we will find that socialists will fail miserably in this direction.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The proper answer to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson) is that 3 weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) conceded that 25 per cent of the Northern Territory was controlled by overseas interests; that solely Australian interests held only 43 per cent of the higher rainfall top end of the Territory; and that 29 per cent was held by joint Australian and overseas interests, 17.1 per cent by Americans, 7.3 per cent by Egyptians and 3.3 per cent by British interests. God help Australia. The question is: Who owns Australia? That is the gravamen of this debate.

In 1941, 30 years ago, Australia stood in grave peril of physical aggression due to the unpreparedness of a conservative Liberal administration. Today Australia stands in equal peril of economic aggression in respect of not only our industry but also our pastoral holdings and, above all, commercial finance and banking. For 30 years we have heard nothing from this Government but economic tripe. The issue that has always been raised was this: There was a Red hand clutching a dagger and there was a continuing thrust of Communist aggression. The thrust has been there all right but it has been economic aggression. The policy of my Party is a fair and reasonable one: What is in the best interests of Australia? Let us hear the Government spokesmen answer that if they can.

This Government has a cargo cult mentality. It is a government which expects the big white ship to come in here indefinitely with bigger and bigger amounts of foreign currency to be invested in this country - in other words for the family farm to be. sold off piece by piece to pay the economic grocery bill overseas. As for the celebrated simile of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) about tickling the tummy of the Australian dog in terms of economic investment, I am afraid that the tummy of that dog is no longer being tickled but it is being kicked, and the dog is being kicked right off the hearth rug and treated as a mongrel not worth feeding. If the Government spokesmen were honest and frank - and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) at least let something out - they would admit that they were extremely worried today because there is an inflow of foreign capital that they are not capable of controlling. The Government does not know; it has not the machinery to know; in the past it did not want to know, and even today it is not prepared to tell the people of Australia the truth before the next election. This is a low posture government. It has been subservient at all costs to great and powerful friends who would own so much of Australia that they must at all costs come here to defend us.

I do not like to bore the House with statistics, but there is one that has not been stated. It is this: Fifteen years ago 9 per cent only of Australia’s total capital needs came from overseas and today the figure is not much more than 12 per cent; but in return, owing to economic sophistication, their possession of technology and above all of managerial expertise, overseas interests are definitely controlling at least 40 per cent, with 33 per cent of dividends being paid or liable to be paid to overseas interests. In hard fact we are well on the way to being a second Canada. What the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) said was quite correct: We are, in fact, the last frontier of uninhibited, semicontrolled open territory. It is true that we have exchange control regulations. The merchant banks which are operating in Australia today are driving a horse and coach through them and cutting them to pieces because they have the means to do so. In July of last year the ‘Financial Review’ ran a remarkable series of articles. One pointed out that there were 95 merchant banks which had either established themselves or had affiliations in Australia. Collectively they represented$5,000m worth of capital and collectively the assets they controlled were 15 times those of the gross national product. In addition to that they were 80 times the total assets held by the whole banking system of Australia.

Finance is government and this Government no longer controls, and has progressively lost control of, the money flow and the money volume of Australia. When it took office in 1949, 70 per cent of the capital of Australia was under the control of the banking system. Last year it was 46 per cent. I venture to say that today it is down to 40 per cent and it will go even lower. The merchant banks are thumbing their noses at this Government. If honourable members want proof of that they need only examine investment figures. For the year 1970-71 there was an inflow of $2, 150m. Of that, the actual amount that was being allocated to the acquisition of resources had dropped by $41m. However, it is of equal interest that purely Australian owned companies had increased their borrowings from $142m to $744m. Their borrowings have gone up by some $631m. Strangely, that is almost the exact internal surplus that the Government budgeted for last August. In other words, when Australian companies saw exactly what was happening or what the Government strategy was they promptly turned around and were able to borrow money overseas from the merchant banks and their affiliates. In so doing they have created further exchange problems for Australia, because that money must be serviced and in the final analysis it must be paid for by hard won exports of Australian produce at a time when there is a vicious world trade war. That is the Government’s tactic, and this is our indictment of the Government.

As for the Government’s capacity to handle the situation, let me remind it of the position of multi-national corporations and what they are doing to the economy not only of Australia but throughout the world in respect of the middle sized industrial nations. Today the average multinational corporation - we have them in Australia - can ride roughshod over the policy of any government. In recent times the Treasurer has tacitly admitted this. He realises that if this Government wants to control the Australian economy it has to control this excessive inflow of borrowings from overseas. The Government knows that it must do what we have advocated for so long. It must be in a position to filter, to identify, to quantify and to monitor the inflow of capital. There is capital that can come into Australia that is beneficial, but in the near future, and with the general depression that there is in the metal industry in particular, there are less prospects than ever of expansion in that field. But in just the same way as the hire purchase banks were able to get around the Government’s dictate when it was decided to curtail the availability of finance to them from the banking system so Australian companies have been able to get around the policy of the Government.

The Government has no answer to this situation and even the Treasurer today had to admit that the Government intended to have a look at it. The Government was not quite sure and he was not prepared to make any final commitment. His Government has had more than 22 years to do this. The Government is in the jam of its life and it does not know how to get out of this one. Reference was made to the restrictions that are imposed upon Australia by these overseas companies. One of the worst, and it is a diabolical one, is the existence of franchise agreements. Franchises amount to something like 1,100 all told. They are a serious method of curtailing Australia’s export capacity because when a foreign company comes into Australia and establishes an industry it has a physical presence here. To that extent it is subject to the ultimate economic sanctions of expropriation if necessary, but in the meantime it decides what it will do. In the final analysis the policy of Australian development is decided not by the heads of that company in Australia but by board rooms in Tokyo, Washington and London.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– I think that all honourable members from both sides of the House would probably agree with me that what we are considering is a matter of public importance. The subject matter refers to:

The increasing control of Australian industries and resources by foreign companies.

There can be no doubt in my mind that the control of Australian industries and resources has been increasing and there is little doubt that it should be diminished. I do not think, however, that the bringing forward of this matter in this way will help us to solve the problem of how to attain the goal which most of us would want to attain. After all, I understand that we are confined to 3 speakers from each side, a number of whom are limited to 10 minutes only. This is a matter of such great national importance that it is paying it scant attention to deal with it in this way.

We have been told by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) that there will be brought down to this House a White Paper prepared by the Treasury and by the Reserve Bank which will go in depth into the actual situation which exists today and which will propose arguments for and against possible actions which the Government might take. On previous occasions I have pointed out that unless the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have abandoned the kind of approach to this problem that they made some time ago, of which I had full knowledge, then setting them up to write a paper on what action should be taken to restrain foreign investment is like asking a committee of Tatts bookmakers to write a treatise on the evils of gambling. But we will have to wait until the White Paper arrives before we can really go into it.

The point is that we are going to get a fully considered paper and each one of us in this House will have a full opportunity, with unlimited debate, to put forward our proposals and our suggestions and to analyse, accept or rebuke the proposals of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank on this most important matter. I believe that this is where the benefit will come rather than by a discussion of this kind in this truncated way. I would hope, too, that when we do enter into such a discussion on these matters we will be able to do so without too partisan an approach from either side of the House. After all, as the Treasurer has pointed out in a previous speech and in the House today, there are arguments for foreign investment - benefits flowing from foreign investment - and there are arguments against foreign investment. Costs are associated with foreign investment. It is not a simple matter and it not being a simple matter it should be one to which honourable members in this House can apply their intelligence without impugning people on the other side of the House or, indeed, arguments in which they do not believe. This is how I think this chamber should approach this most complex and important matter.

For my own part I think that all I propose to say at this stage is this: We need an inflow of overseas capital. Australia has benefited in the past from an inflow of overseas capital and it would be a brave man and, I think, a not very good economist who would suggest that we should have no inflow of overseas capital and should not benefit from the development which takes place as a result of it. I can find no great objection, if there are properties in the Northern Territory or in the north of Queensland which are open for development, in which Australians are able to put money but will not, to overseas capita] coming in and improving those properties, increasing production, turning off more and more cattle from them and earning more foreign exchange. The position would be that Australians had a chance but did not take it. The property will always be there and at some stage will come back.

Nor can I find any great objection to overseas firms taking over Australian companies if they are inefficient, if they are badly run and if they are managed in a way which is not in the best interests of Australia. But I can find great objection to overseas companies moving in and buying up efficient and effective Australian companies, perhaps because their shares on the stock exchange have sunk to a level where the assets of the companies are greater than the money that has to be paid for the shares. I can find great objection to that and I know that it does on occasions lead to what the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) said about franchise arrangements which limit the opportunities of Australian exports. I know that that is true. I know it is true, too, that in the film industry nearly all our film theatres are owned by overseas interests and they will not allow an Australian film to be shown. It has to be shown on the circuit around the country and the few independent theatres which remain are finding it more and more difficult to stay in business because the overseas-owned film chains are refusing to provide them with overseas films, so here there will eventually be a monopoly. This is the sort of intervention which is greatly to Australia’s discredit and which we could act against.

I further say that it is essential if we are to . take any action in this matter that first we should have this discussion on the White Paper and, secondly, that we must get the information to which the Treasurer referred, which we have not previously had but which we must have if we are to approach this problem. That information is: Where is this money coming from? From what countries is it coming? What is it to be invested in when it arrives in Australia? I am not talking of every silly little deal; I am talking about large amounts of proposed investment. We should know that. I am afraid I cannot agree with the Treasurer’s approach on borrowings. What does ‘borrowings’ mean? Who is borrowing - the merchant banks from their parent companies abroad in order to take up equity in Australian firms or to buy portfolios of investment? We do not know. This is the kind of information we must have and I think it is to the Government’s credit that it is seeking now to get this informa tion. But it must be got promptly and precisely and kept up to date if this matter is to be really tackled and really overcome.

The second essential approach and one which it appears to me the Government is now following is to abandon what used to be some years ago an old Treasury dictum that any questioning of foreign capital would drive foreign capital away, frighten it and keep it out of Australia. We must abandon that and adopt an approach that we are an Australian Government, that we have information as to where money is coming from and where it is going. There will be some instances when we do not want it to go into particular areas and in those instances we will say to those who propose to provide that money: ‘Thank you very much. We do not want it. Keep it. We do not want capital coming in for that purpose.’ This is a governmental approach - I am not in any way attempting to work it out in any detail - which is essential and, judging from the Treasurer’s speech today, one which we are now accepting. If these 2 approaches are made then we can act in accordance with Australia’s interests, as the honourable member for Cunningham suggested. It is in our interest in many cases to have overseas investment for development which would not otherwise take place or which would not otherwise take place for decades, lt is not in our interest to have money coming in for the taking over of development which has already occurred or if it comes in in such large proportions that the cost of servicing it is greater than the economy should bear. These are matters that we can discuss when we get a fully-argued paper from the Treasury. These are matters on which there will be a good deal of agreement in many areas, and disagreement in others as there ought to be. But certainly in my view this whole question is a matter of the utmost importance to Australia’s future.

If I may say one more word before I sit down, this is no recent conversion. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) was less than fair when he said I had done nothing about this before. We did, after all, lay down new guide lines to provide incentive for Australian equity. We did protect the Mutual Life and Citizens’

Assurance Co. Ltd and Nabarlek. We did bring in the Australian Industry Development Corporation. We did take some action and I trust that this Government from what it is saying and doing will continue that action.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes, I do. In the course of his remarks the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson) said that I had misrepresented the position on overseas ownership and control of land in Australia. I rise to put on record that I pointed out and I point out again that there were 250 million acres of rural and pastoral land in Australia which were overseas owned or controlled. That is a researched figure and I stand by it. What I did not do, as the honourable member claimed, was misrepresent the position. This is the position and I stand by it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 1000

PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOAN (ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK) BELL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Curtin · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the provision of a guarantee by the Commonwealth to a $US4.5m ($A3.8m) borrowing by the Administration of Papua New Guinea from the Asian Development Bank. The proceeds of the loan are for re-lending by the Administration to the Papua New Guinea Development Bank and will meet the foreign currency component of a number of development projects financed by that Bank in Papua New Guinea over the next 3 years. The loan is the first which the Asian Dev elopment Bank has made, to the Administration since the admission of Papua New Guinea to membership of the Bank in April 1971. Accordingly, it is the first occasion on which Parliament has been asked to approve a guarantee by the Commonwealth for a loan made by the Asian Development Bank to the Administration. However, Parliament has on several previous occasions approved similar guarantees by the Commonwealth in respect of loans from the International Bank for reconstruction and development to the Administration.

The loan documents, which are shown as schedules to the Bill, were settled recently during negotiations in Port Moresby which were attended by representatives of the Asian Development Bank, the Administration, the Commonwealth Government and the Papua New Guinea Development Bank. The principal purpose of the Papua New Guinea Development Bank, which is a statutory authority and commenced operations in 1967, is to provide finance for primary production and for the establishment and development of industrial or commercial undertakings, particularly small undertakings. The loan from the Asian Development Bank will make a valuable contribution towards meeting these purposes. The. loan carries an interest rate of 3 per cent per annum and will be made from the special funds resources of the Asian Development Bank. Repayments will commence in 1975 and be completed in 1987.

Borrowings by the Papua New Guinea Administration automatically carry a Commonwealth guarantee by virtue of the operation of section 75a of the Papua New Guinea Act 1949-1971. Borrowings guaranteed under this provision are, however, mainly local borrowings and borrowings in Australia. However, the letter of assurances shown as the First Schedule to the Bill, which is required from the Commonwealth as a pre-condition of the loan, must be authorised by specific legislation. I would mention that at the time of Papua New Guinea’s admission to the Asian Development Bank Australia gave an undertaking to the Bank in accordance with article 3.3 of the Agreement establishing the Bank that, until Papua New Guinea itself assumes responsibility for its own international relations, Australia would be responsible for all obligations that may be incurred by Papua New Guinea by reason of admission to membership in the Bank and enjoyment of the benefits of such membership.

The Bill authorises the Treasurer to notify the Asian Development Bank that the Commonwealth approves the terms and conditions of the loan for the purpose of making the loan effective. The Bill provides that the undertakings in the letter of assurances shall be valid and binding obligations of the Commonwealth. It also provides for freedom of payments from Australian or territory taxation or restrictions imposed by Australian or territory law. It includes an appropriation on moneys required for the Commonwealth to make any payments under the guarantee. Certain assurances are also required from the Commonwealth by the Administration in connection with the loan and, while these have not yet been finalised, I expect to be able to table the text of them for the information of members before the debate on the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1001

QUESTION

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BELL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 March (vide page 945), 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 non-government primary, secondary, and technical schools and recommend grants which the Commonwealth should make to the States to assist in meeting the requirements of all school age children on the basis of needs and priorities’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– The immediate question is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’.

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.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– in reply - A large number of honourable members have shown a good deal of interest in this debate, and I thank them for showing that interest. Throughout the course of the debate various points have been made which I believe require some answer. For the Opposition a number of spokesmen have tried to make the point that honourable members on this side of the House are not concerned, so far as it is possible to achieve quality in government schools. I refute that charge. We are concerned with the quality of education in all schools and we are concerned, so far as it is possible to achieve it, to establish equality of opportunity for all Australian school children, and there is evidence to support that view.

Since about 1962 or 1963 the numbers of children staying for the last 2 years in government secondary schools have increased by about 85 per cent, in schools in the Catholic sector by much less than that - by about 49 per cent - and in other independent schools by about 25 per cent. The great growth in education in the secondary area has been the growth in government secondary education. The proportion of pupils remaining for matriculation stages in government schools almost doubled in the years from 1959 to 1970- from 13 per cent to 25 per cent. I would be much happier if it were a much higher proportion again, but the trend is in the right direction and I have no doubt that the proportion of children staying on in the matriculation grades will grow year by year. Over the last 10 years the number of 15 to 18 year olds in full time education has risen from 25 per cent to 42 per cent, and by far the greater part of that increase has been in government institutions and government secondary schools.

I should like to repeat the reasons why the Government has chosen to provide per capita funds on the basis provided in the Bill. But first I should like again to emphasise that the capital funds that we are providing have been provided specifically for government schools, for primary and secondary school construction, to be used entirely at the discretion of the States, with the exception of secondary science and library funds which are provided separately. This has enabled a number of the States to increase their rate of school construction or to increase their rate of replacement of old- out-moded and inadequate facilities, and I would again hope that this process would continue. But when we are looking at the difference between capital funds and per capita funds for recurrent finance we come to 2 different sets of circumstances. The capital funds that the Commonwealth has provided for science laboratories and libraries have always been provided against publicly known and objective standards. The standards which have been accepted by the Commonwealth on the advice of expert committees arc publicly known, and the deficiency of a particular school can be measured against its requirements as laid down by those standards committees.

But when we come to recurrent expenditure a different set of circumstances applies. I believe that it is not idly and not capriciously that the National Council for Independent Schools, the Australian Parents Council, the Federal Catholic Schools Committee and the New South Wales Catholic Schools Committee - virtually all the bodies involved with independent schools - have accepted as their preferred., choice per capita payments across the board for recurrent funds. A number of other tests have been suggested from time to time, but I do not believe that they are objective tests which would apply with equity both to parents and to the students in the particular schools concerned. Some people have suggested - this is one of the tests of the South Australian needs basis commission - that pupil-teacher ratios can be used as a determinant or criterion. This again is some kind of incentive to mediocrity because schools with good pupil-teacher ratios presumably would not qualify for the grants, and those with poor ratios would. There might well be the circumstance in which, by achieving an approved pupil-teacher ratio as the result of receiving a grant, a school could put itself in a position in which it failed to continue to qualify for government funds.

The same criticisms apply if one tries to establish a level of fees as providing the criterion. Obviously there will be enormous pressure by parents on school authorities to maintain fees at such a level that the school attracted the maximum government grant. This sort of criterion also takes no note of the fact that many parents send their children to independent schools at considerable cost. They are prepared to reduce their general standard of life in other ways in order to provide that kind of education for one of a great number of reasons which they believe to be good. I can see no merit in such parents being penalised as a result of taking this action.

If it is suggested that the academic standards of a school should be applied or tested to see which schools qualified for additional finance and which did not, we would find that probably in every State there would be one school in the government sector and one school in the independent sector which were about equal at the top of the academic tree. If we were to deny the great majority of other independent schools some support because they did not have academic standards of the same quality as the best government schools, I think we would then be in a difficult position which would not have much equity attached to it. In all these areas if we try to apply these criteria for determining bow much recurrent support might be provided to a school, we find that they are all criteria which will provide a stimulus for mediocrity. They will discourage excellence; they will discourage those parents who, for one reason or another, can or are prepared to try to do more than the average, and it is not necessarily because they are better off that the additional funds are forthcoming.

I think it needs to be noted with some importance that only one State and the Opposition in the Commonwealth have chosen to go outside the generally preferred method of payment to independent school bodies. South Australia and the Federal Opposition have their own particular axis in that area. It is worth noting also that less per capita grants are made available to independent schools in South Australia than to independent schools in any other State. The statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mi Whitlam), which is on record in Hansard, that the neediest schools in South Australia get more per capita funds from the South Australian Government than do the schools of the other States, just is not correct. The neediest schools in South Australia attract a total of $34 per pupil in the primary sector and this is less than what is paid to children in schools in at least 3 other States. There are only 22 of these schools in the most needy category in South Australia. So this provides some measure of the paucity of the funds that are provided for the independent sector under the needs basis in South Australia.

Sometimes an analogy is made between the standards committees that we have established to advise us on the standards for science laboratory and library programmes and the Australian Schools Commission, and it is suggested that because we can establish standards committees that can lay down acceptable standards in a very limited capital area, we can therefore move very quickly to an Australian schools commission that would determine all matters relating to schools. I can only repeat that there is an enormous difference between establishing a standards committee for these capital facilities in independent schools, which only lays down the standard which must govern the determination of grants, an advisory committee in each State which determines priorities, and an Australia-wide Australian Schools Commission. We have the advisory committee in each State determining prorities, so authority in these matters is maintained as much as can be by the people who are responsible for the particular schools concerned. To establish an Australian schools commission, whose purpose would be to determine the fate of the 10,000 government and independent schools around Australia, would be to turn the State education departments into mere post boxes with no real authority of any kind. At the same time it would-

Mr Reynolds:

– That is the Minister’s interpretation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– That is not my interpretation. I will make it quite plain that it is the Australian Labor Party’s interpretation expressed through its spokesmen on education in this debate.

Mr Beazley:

– I think what I said about post boxes was-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member for Fremantle was not the spokesman to whom I was going to refer.

Mr Beazley:

– Nevertheless I have been the spokesman in this debate.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I apologise to the honourable member for Fremantle, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) also spoke in the debate and had some interesting things to say about this matter. The proposed Australian schools commission, as has been revealed in this debate not by the Labor Party’s spokesman on education but by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, would quite plainly determine the total future of government and independent schools throughout Australia.

Mr Reynolds:

– He did not say that either.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I will justify saying that by quoting sections of his speech in a moment. That would have the effect of turning the State education departments into post boxes. It would not only have that effect but also remove the immediate authority and concern which the independent sector has for its own schools from people who have authority in their own areas to a central and new Commonwealth bureaucracy. It should be noted that in a speech on 9th March the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that a schools commission ‘could look at the physical environment of schools to cull out those with inadequate buildings and facilities, and insufficient teaching aids’. It is my understanding that school chalk and school blackboards are teaching aids although they might be modest ones. If an Australian schools commission were going to look to that category of support it would be indeed determining all aspects of support for particular schools. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

A schools commission could look at ways of getting a better spread of more experienced and talented teachers over the economic and geographic distribution of schools. It could recommend what incentives were needed to get these teachers to areas of inequality.

The proposed schools commission would apparently have authority to establish the circumstances in which teachers could be moved from one school to another, not on the judgment of the education authority particularly concerned - the State department, the Catholic Education Office or the independent schools - but again on the judgment of a centralised Australian schools commission. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. At one moment he is saying that it will not be a centralised body and at the next he seeks to justify the fact that it would be the most centralised bureaucracy we have ever seen. This is what is advocated at a time when what is needed is a much greater decentralisation of educational authority and the giving of greater initiative and authority to parents and teachers in their own particular school areas.

The Leader of the Opposition tried to make some point of the fact that the estimates of educational expenditure which had been promised by the Opposition had varied from about $300m in 1969 to $546m at the present time. I think he said that the education policy was identical; that it had not altered. Of course, that is not correct. It has changed over the period and other matters have changed. Because of the big difference and because of the large additional cost of the Australian Labor Party’s present policy, I will outline the differences that make up for the change from $300m to $546m. One of the changes - this is in fact an aside because it is not part of the $546m - was the statement by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) on 26th October that emergency grants totalling $180m would be made available. Of course, on 8th November, during the mid-term election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition issued a policy statement limiting the size of primary and secondary school classes. That was responsible for a significant part of the increase compared with the 1969 Labor Party platform. There’ have also been very substantial rises in the cost of tertiary education, particularly teacher education, under the impact of the minimum requirement of 3 years’ training in a teachers’ college and costs generally in schools have risen by 30 per cent to 40 per cent since 1969. It now costs more than $300 a year to educate a child in a government primary school and more than $500 a year - up to $600 a year - to educate a child in a government secondary school. Those costs are all substantially greater than they were 2 or 3 years ago.

Honourable members on this side of the House have again drawn a good deal of attention to the differences within the Australian Labor Party on the question of the establishment of an Australian schools commission. I have mentioned the further enlightenment we received on this subject from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Attention has been drawn also to a statement in the Senate by Senator Murphy in, I think, November of last year that the

Opposition’s policy plainly meant that government schools would be provided with aid first. The Leader of the Opposition, then, of course, repudiated that statement. Yet his adoption and support of the South Australian model would tend to confirm that particular view. Clearly the proposal for the establishment of an Australian schools commission was a device to enable the various groups in the Australian Labor Party to cover the extraordinary differences and the extraordinarily strong views that exist on one side and the other about aid to independent schools. Whether one comes from the left or the right wing of the Labor Party one interprets this proposal as one thinks fit, each hoping and presumably planning to be able to use the proposed schools commission to achieve his own objectives if the time ever came that it was established.

The differences between the statement by Senator Murphy and the sorts of statements that often come from Labor Party spokesmen on education are certainly very marked indeed. There was an aberration from the honourable member for Fremantle when speaking in an education debate late last year on the Prime Minister’s announcement of $20m being made available in capital funds and of increased funds being made available to independent schools. The honourable member for Fremantle said - again his remarks are recorded in Hansard - that he could not understand why it was not possible to establish one or two advisory committees or commissions in each State to advise on these matters and apparently to do the things which earlier had been attributed to the proposed Australian schools commission. That is a third and different twist to the Australian Labor Party’s platform and policy on education. But I think we are all the more indebted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the insight that he has given to us into the degree to which the proposed Australian schools commission would probe the fortunes, happenings and activities of all schools. It can leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that it would represent a complete Commonwealth takeover insofar as education is concerned.

I think it needs to be pointed out that at the Premiers Conference additional capital funds for works and housing were made available by the Commonwealth to the States. These were, of course, not tied funds but funds to be used as the States wished. The Prime Minister gave an indication that they were funds which could be made available for urban areas, including hospitals, schools and water supplies. Schools were obviously contemplated as one of the areas of activity for these additional funds. While Tasmania provided, I think, 37 per cent of its additional funds for education, Victoria provided a little over 30 per cent and New South Wales provided about 20 per cent, South Australia provided only $400,000 or a bit less than 10 per cent of its additional funds and Western Australia, despite a denial by the Premier of that State, has not yet as I understand it announced any figure out of the additional funds made available to that State, which I think totalled $2.99m, as going to education. That shows quite plainly that education promise and performance are 2 different things to a Labor Party in Opposition and a Labor Party in government.

The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) tried to defend his own State, claiming that its performance was better than that of other States. Again statistics do not support his particular claims. The honourable member for Kingston said that capital expenditure on education per child in government schools in South Australia is in fact the highest in Australia. Well, it is the second highest; Tasmania is higher. South Australia does not happen to be the highest. If one examines the percentage increase in recurrent expenditure at the school level it will be found that in Victoria the percentage increase from 1969-70 to 1970-71 was 57 per cent. In New South Wales and Western Australia it was 42 per cent and South Australia, with a 41 per cent increase, was fourth, not first, in the percentage growth of State expenditure. (Extension of time granted.) I thank the honourable member for Fremantle and I will not detain the House for more than a few moments. Again, if one looks at the total per capita recurrent expenditure made available by the different States for education it will be found that South Australia comes third on the list and not first, contrary to the impression that the honourable member for Kingston tried to provide.

The funds made available by the 2 Bills which we are debating will enable the quality of education to be improved in the government sector and it will enable the independent sector to overcome some of the extremely serious difficulties with which it is faced as a result of rises in recurrent costs. Nobody would pretend that these are the last measures that the Government has in mind in relation to education or in relation to these sorts of facilities, but they are measures provided to cover a difficult period and provide additional finance both to the government sector and to the independent sector where it is very much needed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1006

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 March (vide page 730), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1006

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February (vide page 172), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY (Fremantle) (5.24-I move:

The Australian teaching profession has asked for teacher representation upon this commission. It is quite impossible to imagine this Government appointing any body that had anything to do with the medical profession without having representatives of the medical profession on any commission which dealt with some health question. But when it comes to the teaching profession, the most plain request that there should be representatives of the teaching profession on the education commission has been rejected by the Government. This is not merely an idiosyncratic view of the teaching profession of Australia. The British Government, through Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, has printed and set out the report of the Fifth Commonwealth Education Conference in 1971 and at page 51, paragraph 31, it has this to say:

Delegates wished to record their belief- and, of course, the Australian delegates voted for this - that the qualified teacher has an important role to play in any education system and every society.

They agreed that salaries, conditions of service and similar matters affecting the status of teachers are of concern to those responsible in each individual country, having regard to their own circumstances. However, the Committee noted that ILO and UNESCO had given continuing consideration to the status of teachers through a series of committees, and recommended that Commonwealth governments should be urged to recognise the principles laid down by these bodies. These include, among other points:

  1. encouraging teacher participation in policy making and determination of conditions of service;

Yet the first legislation which the Commonwealth brings in on this matter afterwards excludes teachers from participation in policy making and in the determination of conditions of service by excluding teachers from the commission which will govern a Commonwealth Teaching Service.

The industrial relations of teachers in some of the States are bad enough without a government setting up a new body to handle the affairs of teachers and deliberately excluding teacher representation from the governing commission, not only against the request of the teachers but also against the recommendations in the report of the Fifth Commonwealth Education Conference which dealt with the education problems of the whole Commonwealth of Nations. There were some other recommendations in this matter which could well also be within the purview of a Commonwealth Teaching Service because in the same paragraph 31 in the report of the Fifth Commonwealth Education Conference of 1971 they go on to recommend:

  1. making In-service education available to all teachers;
  2. providing professional training for both primary and secondary teachers.

The Opposition would wish to see some of the distinctions in tertiary education becoming blurred. We are not happy about rigid distinctions between universities and colleges of advanced education. For instance we do not accept the view of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that one is for people of an analytical bent of mind and the other is for people of a practical bent of mind. There is analytical work to be done in colleges of advanced education and I do not agree with Wark that it is a tragedy that one of the colleges of advanced education or its equivalent set up in New South Wales ultimately became a university. I would weep no tears if the Canberra

College of Advanced Education evolved into the University of Canberra, although it is unlikely to do so. We also believe that it would be no tragedy if degrees were awarded in teachers colleges, if teachers colleges began educational research, if they gave Bachelor of Education and Master of Education degrees, if they started to evolve towards a university type status, and similarly right across the whole box and dice of institutes of technology.

There is a rigid concept underlying some, of the Government’s thinking about these tertiary education institutions, which is to be regretted. There is not sufficient concern in the Minister’s statement, in our view, for the professional standing and standards of teachers. Therefore I have, moved paragraph (b) in the amendment which asks for the heightening of professional standards of teachers by empowering the Commonwealth Teaching Service to negotiate for the establishment of faculties of education in universities where necessary. There should be a faculty of education in the Australian National University. It would have a very important function for all Australian education services and for the education services of Papua New Guinea. We believe that the teaching profession is evolving towards the highest professional standards and that more attention should be given in universities to this question.

We believe also that the Department of External Territories is to go out of existence and that under the Commonwealth Constitution there will come into being a section of the Department of Foreign Affairs which will be the section of Pacific relations. Australia should not only be providing assistance of various kinds where it has had and has exercised sovereignty, as in Papua New Guinea; it should also be providing assistance of various kinds in areas where it has never exercised sovereignty, as part of the cultivation of our relations with our Pacific neighbours such as Samoa, Tonga, British Solomon Islands, Fiji, Cook Islands - places where New Zealand has developed certain relationships and where Australia could develop certain relationships, too. We believe, that a Commonwealth teaching service should be available if some of our Pacific neighbours call upon its uses to provide them with teachers of a specialist kind or of an ordinary kind if that is what they want.

The Minister has had a great deal to say about bureaucracy in other contexts, but when it comes to allowing the. public in, in advisory councils and so on, he avoids that like the plague and all he wants is a civil service structure. Rejected by the Minister in the Bill that is before the House are representations that there should be an advisory council to assist the Commission, this council to be representative of the community and of educational research and educational administrative bodies. Dear me, no - centralisation, the Minister told us in the last debate, was what the Commonwealth Government wished to avoid like the plague. But power is centralised in one commissioner and this one commissioner appears to be answerable to the Public Service Board. And the Minister talks about bureaucracy. An educational authority answerable to the Public Service Board. Let us have a look at what the teaching’ profession had to say about this in a letter which was sent to the authorities. The letter was sent to Sir Hugh Ennor, the Secretary of the Department of Education and Science, by Mr George T. Smith, the General Secretary of the Australian Teachers Federation. This is what he had to say:

The Australian Teachers Federation understands the point of view of your Department that the responsibilities with which the legislation is concerned would be such that an appointment of more than one Commissioner would not be justified. Nevertheless the Australian Teachers Federation believes that the number of qualifications of teachers within a service are so crucial that 3 Commissioners are required. One of these could be appointed by the Minister in any way he sees fit; a second Commissioner appointed by the Minister should have a knowledge of and experience in teaching and education and the third Commissioner should be elected by the teachers.

The Australian Teachers Federation representatives supported this proposal on the grounds that the teachers in the service are more likely to have their point of view more adequately presented and considered. It is felt that the service would have more confidence in the judgment of 3 Commissioners than they are likely to have in one, because it could happen that a Commissioner may be appointed who is not acceptable to teachers. However it is clearly understood by the ATF that the intention is to appoint a Commissioner who will have a sound background in education as well as in administration.

The Australian Teachers Federation requests also that the Commission should be responsible directly to the Minister rather than to the Public Service Board.

Honourable gentlemen opposite nod their approval when the Minister says that he does not want education to be bureaucratic. Is that just a debating point or is it a real conviction? If it is a real conviction they should support any amendment which makes the commissioner responsible to the Minister and not to the Public Service Board. The Australian Teachers Federation deals with this argument about the Public Service Board quite fairly. The letter continues:

It would appear that this is contrary to standard Commonwealth practice and that the Public Service Board has a responsibility only in assuring overall consistency within the service and it will not be concerned with decisions of detail. These will be made by the Commissioner. The Australian Teachers Federation still feels concerned about this association with the Public Service Board on the grounds that decisions may be made purely from the administrative point of view and may not be in the best interests of education.

In the event of the CTS being administered by a Commissioner the ATF would request even more strongly that a recognised Advisory Council representing all sections of the community should be established. Your Department believes that the Commissioner would as a matter of course consult with a wide range of people in the community but the ATF would prefer to see a recognised body on which the community is systematically represented.

The amendments which the Opposition will propose in this matter are amendments away from rigidity. We believe that the Commonwealth should train a body of teachers and it should have a Commonwealth teaching service available. The Minister spoke about the direction that we would invest in a schools commission. Ons direction we do not want to invest in his commissioner under this legislation is the power to direct teachers to go anywhere. At the appropriate stage of this Bill we will be moving for the freedom of teachers not to be directed to serve under education authorities nominated by the Commissioner unless they wish to do so. The amendment will be moved in clause 16(6.) where we propose to delete the words ‘outside Australia and the Territories’ and rewrite the clause in the following form:

The ‘Commissioner shall not direct an officer to perform duties in a school conducted by an authority unless he consents to perform duties for that authority.

In other words, when we had a professional body of teachers - trained, we hope, at professional standards - they would be free to serve in the same way as a professional body of doctors would be. If they choose to go to Papua New Guinea* to the Northern Territory, to Western Australia or to the Australian Capital Territory that is their choice. I hope that the Minister, who has had some strictures to utter on our rigid and bureaucratic attitudes, will appreciate the flexibility of the proposal that is to be moved as an amendment to his Bill. In view of his speech earlier we expected his support and his rejoicing in having converted the Opposition to a flexibility which he was asserting 5 minutes ago that it did not possess. In other words, we are not centralising power in a Commonwealth bureaucracy; we are not making the Commissioner responsible to the Public Service Board. We are setting up a training teaching body with freedom of movement around Australia or into the Pacific.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I referred to a trained teaching profession with a freedom of movement around Australia or into the neighbouring islands of the Pacific, according to their own choice. The report of the Fifth Commonwealth Education Conference states in paragraph 33:

The Committee recognised that employing authorities have responsibility for positive action designed to enhance the status of teachers. Among other measures, they need to provide appropriate physical conditions; to provide appropriate conditions of employment; to accept the obligation to provide adequate initial training; to establish minimum qualifications for the employment of teachers; to accept the obligation to provide opportunity for upgrading of teachers through in-service education and to be responsible for the removal of petty restrictions; to provide opportunities for regular consultation between teachers, administrators and planners.

This we feel would certainly be achieved by the Commonwealth if it were to establish a free teaching service because if you have a body of trained teachers available for educational authorities to draw upon, seeking to attract them in competition, it is very likely that they will comply with those conditions set out in paragraph 34 about the status and the conditions of teachers. It is regrettable that there is this subtle downgrading of the teachers who are going to be trained under this scheme. I do not imagine that the honourable gen tlemen opposite, however much they may agree with everything that the Minister says about the private sector of education, can be happy about the not very subtle downgrading of the status of State schools in every utterance that the Minister makes, as happened today.

The crime of the South Australian Government apparently is its expenditure on the State schools. I am perfectly sure that if the Commonwealth Government made more funds available the South Australian State Government would spend them very heartily in any sector of education. But after 34 years of Playford and a form of education very similar to that in Victoria where private education as elitist education for long was far superior to that of the State, there was a need for upgrading the status of State schools. The Government of South Australia must be answerable to its own electorate for whatever it does. The Minister never refers to the Western Australian Government because he cannot make his debating point in that way. There is no central Labor authority directing each State government, whether it is of a Labor character or not, what it shall do in education, saying to the South Australian Government, for example ‘You shall do the same as Western Australia’ or to Western Australia ‘You shall do the same as South Australia’. That is the Minister’s debating point. It is not the truth of the Australian situation. Nor is it the truth about the structure of the Labor Party in this matter.

If, for instance, we took over the financing of tertiary education entirely and made the same grant to the States and said ‘The additional money that you will have because you are no longer burdened with tertiary education you are to spend as you see fit’ each of the State governments would be answerable for the way in which they spent the money. As a man who professes to believe in decentralisation this is precisely what the Minister should agree to. I may or may not agree that what Mr Hudson does is the optimum in South Australia but if I believe in decentralisation as the Minister professes he does then there should be no central Labor Party authority directing him, as the Minister argues that there is, and then complains when it actually happens that there are differences in the way that different State Labor governments administer their funds.

Coming back to the points that we have made in this debate, the provision of an advisory council to assist the Commission to be representative of the community and of educational research bodies is an important consideration. No legislation that has come before this Parliament for a long time has been greeted with such waves of unenthusiasm. It was greeted with waves of unenthusiasm by a Catholic parents association down in Victoria. It was greeted with wave? of unenthusiasm by the parents and citizens of Canberra. It was greeted without enthusiasm by the Australian Teachers Federation. It was greeted without enthusiasm by the parents and teachers associations of a number of Australian States. Yet all the Minister can do is to stand up in this House and say: ‘I am right to exclude the teacher representatives from having any say in the control of this scheme. I am right to make it answerable to the Public Service bureaucracy and I am right to exclude any members of the community from having any representation on an advisory council.’ Then the Minister turns around and says that he opposes bureaucracy and that the Opposition supports it. This was a most astonishing performance in view of the fact that every dissenting decision that the Minister makes in relation to the Commonwealth Teaching Service is a decision for bureaucracy. I repeat: One Commissioner, no teaching representatives, no representatives from educational research fields, no representatives from the public and the Commission to be answerable to the Public Service Board. The Minister is immune to the protests of parents’ organisations throughout the Commonwealth just as he is immune to protests from the Teaching Service.

The amendments which the Opposition will later move have already been outlined by me but I would like to make a comment on one amendment that we propose to make in regard to clause 33 of the Bill. It is not wise to make the position of a woman teacher who is pregnant analogous in her leave entitlements to somebody sitting in an office who is pregnant. It is not as easy to carry pregnancy in front of a class as it is working in an office. Therefore we believe that the leave conditions for a pregnant woman teacher set out in this legislation are insufficiently generous. We believe that a woman teacher should have leave on pay long before the time of confinement and long before the time when her appearance could become embarrassing because the circumstances of teaching are special circumstances. They are not analogous to those in an office. We also believe that if there are disabilities for the child or the woman after the birth of the child the leave should be longer than is at present proposed. For those reasons we will move an amendment to clause 33. Our amendment will provide that an officer shall be entitled to receive her normal salary in respect of a period of absence from duty in accordance with the clause which provides for pregnancy. We also do not like the illiberal provisions whereby the pregnancy leave does not apply to a temporary teacher. If a temporary teacher becomes pregnant she can hop it without pay, as far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, under this legislation. This is a very poor attitude because temporary teachers can be highly qualified professionally, can be very important in a service, and you may wish to retain their services.

So we propose extensions of leave beyond the bureaucratic rigidity of this clause when we propose that nothing contained in or done under this clause prevents the grant of leave of absence with pay on the production of a medical certificate relating to herself or to the child in support of an extension of leave to an officer in respect of the period in excess of the 26 weeks referred to in sub-clause (1.) of this clause. This is an important proposal. I stress that the leave for a teacher in this respect is not analogous to leave in the Public Service generally.

Since this Bill differentiates between an officer and a temporary employee, we. provide in our proposed amendment that a temporary employee shall take leave of absence and be entitled to be paid maternity leave and such leave benefits on account of pregnancy as are applicable to a female officer, that is, a full time teacher under this legislation. What we are proposing in relation to this Bill is dignity for the teaching profession, freedom of movement of trained teachers into various educational authorities without direction, great flexibility for this body to be used in the Pacific generally than is provided for in the legislation, greater flexibility for these teachers to be used within the States, higher professional standards by developing and utilising educational faculties in universities, the participation of teachers in the government of this scheme, and the participation of the community.

When the Minister is speaking, as he often is, about the further decentralisation of education, bringing into the educational process the interests of local communities, he advances the argument that the minds of qualified people in the community brought to bear on educational problems are a valuable addition to the government of education. That is his argument. We accept that argument. He accuses us, of course, of not accepting it. We accept that argument and we will be interested to watch how the Minister will vote on our amendment providing for the representation of the community generally and specialised educational research bodies in the advisory council, not a governing council, to assist what we hope will be 3 commissioners responsible to the Minister, not one commissioner responsible to the Public Service Board.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Reynolds:

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

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– Speaking after a modest meal I find it hard to generate the degree of heat emitted by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) when he was speaking on this subject of the Commonwealth Teaching Service prior to the suspension of the sitting, I presume on an empty stomach. That may not be the only explanation for his acerbity in this particular matter because I detect from what he had to say a somewhat excessive inclination to believe the worst of this Bill, of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and of those who advised him, although, of course, they were not mentoned in the process. It may well be true that we have here an example of over centralisation, of authoritarianism, of lack of community representation, a downgrading of professional qualifications and various other matters of a lesser order. I find it hard to believe that any or all of those things will come about although I think I should concede, on the evidence of the Bill, that some of those things might be possible. But the success of any system such as this obviously depends on the goodwill of the operators. This is something that I think I have said before in this House. If one is prepared to believe that the operators do not have good intent and are setting up a particular function merely to browbeat the people who operate within it, of course all sorts of fears will come to the surface and one will hardly believe that any good will come of it. I think I can understand that particular point of view, whether it emanates from the honourable member for Fremantle with his usual balanced view of things or from any other honourable member opposite. After being in Opposition for a considerable time honourable members opposite no doubt are prepared to think that the worst will always come from those on this side of the House. However I do not believe the view is justified in this particular case.

Let us examine what sort of things worry the honourable member for Fremantle, and presumably some of his colleagues who will follow, judging by the preliminary interruptions or interjectionsof the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds). The honourable member for Fremantle thinks that this proposed Commonwealth teaching service is something - some of those whom he quotes do likewise - which will not be integrating the teachers with the service they wish to perform or will be employed to perform. He thinks that there will be far too much authority concentrated in the hands of a commissioner and perhaps in the hands of the Minister. For this reason and others be moves, on behalf of his Party, 5 amendments which are of a fairly considerable order in the total view of the matter. I do not propose to repeat them seriatim at this moment. Let us consider what might have been said if, in fact, the provisions laid down were not the case. It might well have been that this service was made a direct arm of the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science. One could imagine the order of criticism that would have come forward. The Minister, in a fairly lengthy second reading speech - 7 pages of Hansard - outlined in some detail what is intended in this important legislation. It has been suggested that various things are to be done. The main function of this service is - I quote the Minister:

In summary, the Commonwealth Teaching Service is intended to include eventually all teachers employed in Commonwealth-operated schools in mainland Australia. The Bill is framed in such a way that the Commonwealth Teaching Service may include also teachers in other schools where, for one reason or another,- this is appropriate. Thus the Bill win make it possible for a number of the highly qualified and experienced Australian teachers in Papua New Guinea to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service.

This kind of informative detail continued for upwards of 6 pages of Hansard. That seems to me to be an entirely proper intention and what we are arguing about is the way in which it might be carried out. First and foremost should we have a commission rather than a commissioner in this particular field of operation? The criticisms of the honourable member for Fremantle seemed to hinge fairly substantially, as I recall them, on the fact that we will have an excessive centralisation of power in the hands of one man or woman who, in fact, will operate this system. There is an assumption that we are envisaging an education system and that there are very considerable things of an educative kind which are contemplated. That is not true. We are talking about a teaching service and, for good reasons or bad - the inclination on this side of the House is to think them good - the proposition is that the teachers who will make the system function are, in fact, the only people involved in this particular legislation. It is not legislation for the operation of a whole series of schools; it is designed for flexibility whereby a particular group of teachers will be able to operate in one or more service depending on certain qualifications and certain matters laid down for their direction. This would appear to be an entirely proper concept. If somebody cares to disagree and say it should be integrated with some department, although it has not been taken as far as that, they are welcome to do so, but prima facie I do not think one can suggest that there is anything wrong with the proposition that we should have a kind of autonomous teaching service which can operate in due course in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and even in Papua New Guinea.

As we know, again as the Minister has pointed out, the reason for this proposal coming to pass is that South Australia, which has responsibility for the teachers of the Northern Territory, is withdrawing from that system. New South Wales would like to do likewise in respect of the Australian Capital Territory. They have hitherto been reimbursed by the Commonwealth for their functions on behalf of the Commonwealth. Within a few years or so we expect teachers in all the Commonwealth Territories to be operating under the aegis of this Service. Does this mean that there is excessive administrative centralisation - that this autonomous or fairly substantially autonomous body has unto itself too many functions, too much disciplinary authority and other powers which are feared?

One thing that the honourable member for Fremantle did not mention was the size of the Service. He seems to imply - I may do him an injustice - that we are talking about something that for the moment is a direct parallel with the State education systems. It may approximate a parallel with the size of the Tasmanian system but beyond that I do not think we. can go because currently - I think my figures are right - we are dealing with about 1,200 teachers in the Australian Capital Territory and 600 in the Northern Territory. In due course they will grow in number as the populations increase but we are talking about something of the order of 2,000 or fewer people. We. are not talking about the 30,000 or more teachers in the New South Wales system. I think it is entirely proper, at this jump off point, to have a situation where not everything is spelt out and where there are some possibilities of flexibility in development. The inimitable Professor Sawer in making one of his almost weekly comments on matters of current interest had a number of things to say, some of which were more or less critical and some of which bordered on the complimentary. On 8th March appeared an article of his in the ‘Canberra Times’ in which he said:

The Minister has my sympathy. It is inconceivable that he could today put up a proposal which would satisfy all interests.

He should, however, treat this one as an experiment, to be re-considered when the Territories acquire their separate school authorities.

I do not know of anything which suggests that the door is closed to future consideration of the changing needs of any of the Territories and it seems to me that while it may be good and proper for the honourable member for Fremantle or others to have hesitations, hiatuses, reservations and worries about what might happen in some future year, the plain fact of the matter is that we are setting up a basic authority to deal with a very small service and one which doubtless can grow and the legislation for which will enable it to do so. So I do not really see that these fears hitherto mentioned are justified.

I deal now with some of the other matters raised by the honourable member for Fremantle. He is the only one who has preceded me in this debate and I must focus on what he had to say. He has moved a S-part amendment and he makes the point that no teacher is represented on the commission. Of course, that would be so if there were only a commissioner and not a commission. Perhaps it is not totally convincing but the argument is that in current circumstances and in view of the nature of the job to be done the commissioner will with a small staff be responsible for the whole operation; that it is a small system and it is not appropriate at this stage at least to have a representative commission, in other words, to overload the apple cart and to have a heavy administrative structure to administer something which at the moment is specifically a teaching service operating for a relatively small number of teachers. That seems to me to be fair argument and, if we care not to accept that argument, we come back to the question of whether or not goodwill is assumed to be existing. Obviously, being on this side of the House I choose to believe that this service rs being set up as a constructive operation and that goodwill will be apparent until otherwise is seen to be the case. So there we are so far as representation is concerned.

There is a problem in the sort of people who are said to be somewhat dissident towards the centralisation of authority, if that is what it is, and the focus of authority in a very few hands. It should be mentioned that the Australian Capital Territory Secondary Teachers Association late in February this year when commenting on the proposed provisions said, .that the Commonwealth Teaching Service ‘will have an outward appearance of being a reasonably autonomous statutory body but will in fact be too much under the authority of the Minister’. That is the Association’s point of view. It happens to be a part of the New South Wales Teachers Federation and when giving evidence before the Rydge Committee which was considering a- short time ago a possible education commission in New South Wales, the Federation said:

The restoration to democratic parliamentary control through a responsible Minister of many matters now only decided by reference to the (Public Service) Board, will be among the important results of setting up the proposed education commission.

So on the one hand the whole body is saying in a particular situation that this is a fairly democratic sort of operation. A little later in relation to a very slightly different but still similar proposed commission in another place a portion of that body, the Australian Capital Territory Secondary Teachers Association, begs leave to differ with itself, as it were, and says it has considerable reservations about getting too much autonomy or authority in or near the hands of the Minister. There is a certain inconsistency there and in that sense its view does not impress me.

The honourable member for Fremantle made, among other points, the point that there had been an unenthusiastic reception by various groups of an educational kind of the proposed legislation. In terms of the comments of Professor Sawer which I have already quoted, that is to be expected. One who comes from anywhere in Australia other than the Australian Capital Territory comes to expect that those representatives of bodies in the Australian Capital Territory are unlikely to be happy with almost anything unless it is gold plated. I may do them an injustice in certain respects but I would be extraordinarily surprised if they were to accept any new proposal as being good enough for the Australian Capital Territory. So far as I can see from a close reading of umpteen pages of this Bill the provisions here are better than those under which the teachers in any State operate. I may be wrong in that and it may not be a good enough yardstick anyway. But I believe they are about to get a fairly good deal and once again that will depend on how well it is dealt. However, I see no reason to believe that the dealing of this legislation will be less than reasonable.

There are other propositions put forward in the amendments which the Opposition has moved. The second is: for the heightening of professional standards of teachers in the Commonwealth Teaching Service by empowering the Commission to negotiate for the establishment of faculties of education in universities where necessary, including the Australian National University.

I suppose in one way that is an unexceptionable proposition but I cannot see why it is necessary. As I said earlier, we have a proposal for a Commonwealth teaching service - not a Commonwealth education service nor at this stage a Commonwealth teacher training service - for the administration, enlistment, provision of qualifications, salaries and other such matters in relation to the people who are to teach. I am not quite sure why the service should have the power to negotiate for establishing faculties of education anywhere at this stage. It does not seem to me to be appropriate to its function. Having had something to do with faculties of education in a reasonably direct way and certainly in a constant indirect way in universities, I think that those institutions or their equivalent will be able to cater for that proposition as well as anybody and better than most. I do not see it as the function of the Commonwealth teaching service to push for educational faculties here, there or anywhere else.

In relation to the amendment concerning the opening up of the service to take care of Pacific island candidates or employees, again that is quite unexceptionable and it is covered under clause 16 (3.) (b) of the Bill which leaves a wide provision for future operation in this respect. The honourable member for Fremantle took a fairly strong point in part (d) of the amendment. He mentioned in quite strong terms that representation of the public on this teaching service operation would be highly desirable. I suppose one can argue that the public in some form or other - the community - should be represented on almost anything one cares to think of, but I tend on occasions to be specialist conservative enough to think that there are some people who have learned about particular fields of interest who may be able to run their own show. I am not yet persuaded that members of the public would greatly enhance the professional operation of a teaching service, whoever they might be. It seems to me that those properly qualified in that field to administer the service, having come through the ranks in particular, should be able to handle it successfully. I say so as a trained teacher who for a short period of time operated under the limitations and restrictions of the New South Wales Department of Education, such as it was then, a department which was probably excessively bureaucratic, although understandably bureaucratic up to a point, given its size. So I do not think community representation would ensure very much. It may be a useful provision which the Minister of the day may see fit to incorporate under clause S3 which caters for all such operations. He could do that at a future stage.

The final part of the amendment concerns the pregnancy of female teachers and the fact that general Commonwealth Public Service provisions which are laid down for them are inadequate. I am unlikely to be in the situation of having to make a personal judgment on this and I do not know what Women’s Lib would say if it were interested in pregnant women teachers. But the plain fact is that clause 33 allows pregnant female teachers to take off a period of duty not exceeding 26 weeks of which something like 20 weeks can be before confinement. I am not an expert in these matters but that seems to me to be a pretty long period of time and probably adequate to cater for almost any contingency in this particular detailed matter of teaching efficiency and humanitarian operation. Again I do not really see at this point that there is a great bone of contention there but it may be that the honourable member for Fremantle is right in wanting a greater latitude and flexibility of operation in that circumstance with regard to female members of the fraternity.

Finally, because my time is running out, I say that we have here a constructive provision. It may be that advice has come from heavily authoritarian members of the Department of Education and Science and from a heavily authoritarian Minister who are hell bent upon setting up a structure which will absolutely incarcerate those people who come into the service. I do not see it that way at this point of time and I hope the future will not prove me to have been wrong. I think there is enough flexibility in clauses such as 53 and 16 (3.) (b) to allow for future adaptation to make this perhaps the best teaching service in the Commonwealth. I am sure that that is the intention of those people who currently are proposing it.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon), who has just spoken in this debate, made some remarkable statements about education. They are all the more remarkable when one has vividly in mind what the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had to say this afternoon when dealing with another education Bill. At the time the Minister was chiding the Labor Party about its proposal for an Australian educational commission. He said that it would be a great bureaucratic structure which would try to dictate education through the length and breadth of the land. Yet the honourable member for Denison has just said that he saw no great merit in having participation in the policy making and administration of education by the community at large. I am sure that that is a view that would not be shared by many of his ex-colleagues in the teaching profession, or by the many informed people in our community.

The Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill which we are now discussing is an enabling Bill. Most of the meat that will be used to build up the structure that is proposed will be provided by regulation, but even allowing for the fact that we are dealing with a proposal for only the skeleton of a teaching service it is still in many ways a disappointing Bill. As has been said, the Bill is designed to meet an immediate situation. The South Australian Government gave notice in 1970, I think h was, that as from 1975 it would no longer provide teachers to service Commonwealth responsibilities in the Northern Territory. I understand that a proposal is also imminent from the New South Wales

Department of Education to cease making teachers available for service in the Australian Capital Territory.

It is that type of uncertainty that has led to the introduction of this Bill. I am still left wondering whether this is meant to be a stop gap Bill or whether it is meant to establish a permanent structure. The Minister certainly gave no clear indication of what he thinks about the matter. I have read carefully his second reading speech and I have also made a detailed reading of the Bill. My reading indicates that the Government has still not made up its mind. I would venture to say that it has not made up its mind about the kind of educational authority it would like to see established in the Australian Capital Territory. The people of the Australian Capital Territory have made many representations to honourable members on both sides of this Parliament in recent times. I am sure that they would be very greatly disappointed to hear that the present structure is in fact to be a permanent structure for educational control in the Territory.

It is not a particularly inspiring or new approach to education in the Bill. As I have already intimated, no obvious attempt is made in the Bill to stimulate wide community involvement. This is a feature of Australian education that is notoriously absent Almost every educationist who visits Australia is amazed at the rather bureaucratic and dictatorial control of our educational set up. We talk so glibly about education for a democracy, but the model we offer to students in the classrooms is in so many respects still a very dictatorial or bureaucratic control.

There does not seem to be a recognition that the professional teacher has something worthwhile to offer in the running of the service to which he belongs. How very different is the status accorded to teachers by this Government to that afforded to other professional groups such as doctors, architects and lawyers. Would anyone ever imagine that the Government would set up some kind of control over the medical profession without having representatives of the doctors themselves on the controlling body? The position is the same with architecture, law and the other learned professions. In respect of teaching there is this belittling of the professional status. It is assumed that teachers have nothing worthwhile to offer to the running of the system. As a result so many people from overseas are quite amazed by the lack of community involvement and community participation in our schools.

Nearly every parents and citizens organisation laments the fact that only about 25 parents might turn up to a meeting at a school of 1,000 students. There is a lack of interest that probably has its origin in the fact that we entrust to these parent bodies only the running of fetes and other means of revenue raising to provide the facilities not provided by the Government. We do not give those organisations the opportunity to make decisions about how a school will be run or about what kind of curriculums and syllabuses the students will have in the course of their studies. No, the parents are assumed not to have any competence in these matters. Yet honourable members opposite will still talk glibly about education for a democracy. There is certainly no democratic participation in our educational scheme.

The scheme proposed in the Bill, I concede, does provide a basis of professional security for a group of teachers who will serve under various Commonwealth educational authorities and for other teachers who will be on loan from the Commonwealth to the States and other Territories, and indeed, to other countries. However, I would like to refer to other features of this Bill. One of the notable features of the Bill is that it does not provide for an integrated educational service. One of the obvious things it does is to create a division or separation between the teaching service, on the one hand, and the authority that runs the schools, on the other hand. This is unique, and to that extent the Bill is original and does provide something different. Whether it is justified is something about which the Minister has not had much to say. As a matter of fact, he claimed that it is better for a teacher employment service to be run separately from the authority that runs the schools. I do not know whether he meant that as a general principle or as something that applies to the particular situation we are dealing with here.

If the Minister thinks that it is desirable as a general principle he certainly gave no evidence to justify his viewpoint. There can be justification - and I think the Minister was getting around to saying this - for separating the teaching employment service from the running of the schools as each educational authority is so small in extent that it is necessary to combine them, and the way to do it is by the formula set out in this Bill. I have already referred to the fact that this Bill provides for a very bureaucratic kind of control. It provides for one commissioner to run the whole Commonwealth teaching service. It provides for one commissioner who will deal with the supply of teachers on request from Papua New Guinea, any country of the Pacific, or indeed, any other Asian country that might seek the provision of teachers by the Australian Government.

It has been said that, after all, only a very small number of teachers are involved and it is a very small educational service. It was acknowledged by the honourable member for Denison mat about 2,000 teachers are involved, with not only quite distinct qualifications but also a great variety of qualifications and experience. I understand that these 2,000 teachers will be responsible for servicing about 40,000 students. The capital investment involved in the teaching service will be over $100m. The important thing is that whilst the numbers of teachers and students involved are not as great as are usually involved in a State teaching service, there is greater diversity in nature than any other teaching set-up in Australia. In view- of the nature of the task involved I think there is justification for more than one commissioner to be in control. We have suggested that there ought to be 3 commissioners, and this is the view of the professional teachers themselves. The Australian Teachers Federation has proposed that there should be 3 commissioners.

We, like the Federation, have insisted that at least one of those commissioners should represent the teachers, who have an important stake in the educational process. But it is not only a question of their having a personal stake in it; there is also the question of the educational intelligence that they bring to doing a task that is so important. That is the main reason why teachers should have a say in the policy making and in the administrative process.

But not only teachers have to be considered; the community at large ought to be entitled to have some say in the running of schools. In America, in Great Britain and in many other countries parents and the community at large are involved in the running of schools as part of a democratic society. Of course, sometimes it can be overdone, and I would not like to recommend that it should be overdone in this instance.

But we have gone to the other extreme of appointing a one-man bureaucracy to run the Commonwealth Teaching Service. As I said previously, it is belittling the professional status of teachers and it is disregarding the genuine rights of parents, citizens and all those in the community who not only pay the piper but also have a definite interest in the educational process. It is against all the world trends of seeking greater involvement by these people. Not only will we deny teachers, parents and other specially interested groups a say in the running of the educational process; but in this Bill we even deny them any participation by way of their serving on an advisory council. This view was pressed very strongly by the teachers and by various community groups, but again the Commonwealth rejected it. So instead of making a progressive step, we are making a very regressive step. Even in our State systems of education there are advisory bodies. In the Department of Technical Education there are advisory bodies on courses, on curricula and on college administration, and all these bodies have advisory committees. But here we are to have a one-man show, a one-man band. As I said, in my view it is a quite regressive step.

Another feature of the Bill is the provision for Public Service Board supervision. All over Australia a concerted attempt has been made to throw off the domination of the Public Service Board, not because of any personal dislike of members of the Board but because it is recognised that the province of responsibility, the nature of responsibility or the diversity of responsibility of Public Service Boards - whether they be State boards or, in this case, the Commonwealth Public Service Board - have extended enormously. How can a board that is charged with the control of all the other Commonwealth . responsibilities bring the right kind of judgment to bear on the running of an educational body? An educational body, by its very nature, requires its own authority. Yet under this Bill the Commissioner will be obliged, in determing salaries and conditions of service, to submit proposals for the approval of the Public Service Board so that there can be a consistency of salaries and conditions as between all Commonwealth employees. As I have said, in many States strong pressure has been exerted to remove, education authorities from the supervision of the Public Service Board.

There is no comparable body within the authority of the Commonwealth Public Service Board with which the new Teaching Service can be compared. The essence of determining conditions of employment is that they have to be related to the conditions applying to some other body. You cannot compare the employment conditions of pregnant teachers, about which the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) spoke at some length and with some feeling, with those of public servants. The honourable member went on to say - I will not labour the point now, and that is not meant to be a pun - that there is a distinct difference between a female clerk working in comparative secrecy or isolation and a teacher who has to stand before a class. Obviously the pregnant teacher has not the same liberty, if 1 may put it that way, in carrying on her professional duties as has somebody else who is less exposed to the public. Therefore, you cannot liken the position of a pregnant teacher to that of any other female in the Public Service who might be in that condition. This is just one other instance where Public Service Board supervision is not warranted.

Teachers have expressed concern about transferability within the Service. Under clause 16 of the Bill a teacher may be posted to any post in Australia or to any of its Territories. We think that this is an unwarranted intrusion into the professional status of teachers. The Government would not do it with other professional groups. We suggest - we will move an amendment ro this effect - that a teacher’s consent should be obtained before he or she is posted to another authority. The only limitation that is provided in the Bill is that if a teacher is sent to some authority other than within Australia or within its Territories, then his or her consent has to be obtained. Let me take the case of a teacher here in Canberra. We suggest that before that teacher can be sent to teach in the Northern Territory or in Papua New Guinea or Norfolk Island his or her consent should be obtained to transfer him or her from the authority which controls education in Canberra.

Another matter of some concern to teachers is the lack of provision in the Bill for a promotions committee. Obviously if there is to be the number of educational authorities that are mentioned in this Bill - the Australian Capital Territory authority, the Northern Territory authority, the Papua New Guinea authority and maybe other authorities - certainly a great diversity of professional experience and professional qualifications will be involved. It will be a very difficult task for the new Teaching Service to equate the service of a teacher in one of those authorities - say, a teacher teaching Aborigines in the Northern Territory - with the service of a teacher at, say, the Narrabundah school here in Canberra. A good deal of intelligence will be required in trying to equate those positions and to provide for an equitable system of promotion. It has been strongly recommended that perhaps there ought to be a teachers’ representative on a promotions committee. This would more likely make the promotion system more acceptable.

There is provision in the Bill for a promotions appeal board. On that board there will be one elected representative of the teachers, one representative nominated by the Commissioner and an independent chairman appointed by the Minister. This means that there will be 2 boss’s men on the promotions appeal board as against one representative of the employees. The other point to note about this setup is that the Independent chairman appointed by the Minister will not be required, under the terms of the Bill, to have any particular qualifications, and there is no indication within the Bill as to how the Minister is to select the chairman. It is recommended to the Minister and to the Government that the independent chairman might well be a judge. After all, he will be dealing with some very important problems affecting the morale of a pretty extensive teaching service.

One other matter that gives concern to those who look at this Service and who are likely to find employment is the Commissioner’s discretion regarding the tenure of office of teachers. Teachers are very disturbed at the unfettered discretion which will be available to the Commissioner under clause 32 (1.). That sub-clause states that if the Commissioner finds that he has a greater number of teachers generally, or in particular classifications or positions, than are needed he may transfer such excess to any area under Commonwealth responsibility or he may retire them from the Service. We are giving all this authority to one man. It will be a one-man bureaucracy. The Bill does not contain any criteria as to how the Commissioner is to determine what is an excess. It refers to all sorts of educational implications about pupil-teacher ratios, class loads, teaching loads and so on. All this is’ entrusted to one man and there is to be no right of appeal from his decision. There are to be rights of appeal as far as promotions are concerned, but there is to be no right of appeal against this discretion which is to be ‘given to this one man. There is cause for suspicion from a reading of clause 16 of the Bill that the Commissioner - the one-man authority - will have the right to intrude into such fields as the determining of teaching rights and class sizes. If that is true it will be bureaucracy gone mad, especially in such a diverse educational scene as the one to which I am referring. There is also the question of the training of teachers. In this respect the Australian Labor Party’s amendment has proposed that the Commissioner negotiate with the universities to establish faculties of education wherever they are needed, particularly at the Australian National University, to uplift the professional standards of teachers.

The Australian Labor Parry’s amendment is designed to do 4 things. Firstly, it is designed to democratise the policy making and administrative procedures of the service and to gain a genuine community involvement in the educational process. (Extension of time granted.) Secondly, it is designed to uplift the professional standards and status of the participating teachers in the ways I have indicated. Thirdly, it aims to divorce education from the rigidities of Public Service Board control. Fourthly, it aims to make a flexible teaching service, backed by professional security, available to not only Commonwealth areas of responsibility but also our neighbours in the Pacific region.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I support the amendment. The first 2 utterances of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his second reading speech were, firstly, that it gave him pleasure to introduce the Bill and, secondly, that honourable members would agree with him that it was an important piece of legislation. I for one certainly do not disagree with those utterances. The concept of the Bill is welcome and it is important. But it is at this point that I clearly depart from the views of the Minister. The provisions of the Bill give those people who are to be burdened with the responsibility for its implementation and effectiveness, namely, the teachers, neither incentive nor inducement. The Bill certainly relegates them to a position of relative unimportance and, above all, strips them of the one aspiration to which they have collectively strived for so many years, that is, identity and professional status. I wish to comment briefly on the approach the Government has adopted to the important question of the criteria and structure of the procedures of promotion insofar as teachers are concerned. In my view it ls both completely unimaginative and puerile. I seek permission to have incorporated in Hansard details of the new promotions scheme applicable to teachers in South Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

page 1019

QUESTION

NEW PROMOTIONS SCHEME FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TEACHERS

(1972 is first full year of operation)

The first stage in the new promotion procedure is that teachers are assessed as to their eligibility for promotion. The assessment is conducted by a panel which consists, in the case of assistant teachers, of the head of the school and an inspector of schools. This panel makes no comparisons between teachers- it simply assesses whether a teacher has the ability and aptitude for the particular job. If a teacher has outstanding ability it is possible that he or she could be assessed at an advanced level.

The set of criteria used by the panel in making its assessment is very detailed and its application inevitably involves an element of subjectivity. However, the very fact that the criteria are spelt out gives each teacher a fair chance to argue his case. The set of criteria for the position of deputy headmaster is attached.

A teacher may appeal against his assessment and the review is normally carried out, in the case of assistant teachers, by an assistant superintendent. The fact that die appeal is heard by a single senior member of the Administration is an apparent weakness in the scheme.

The second stage of the promotion procedure is the one which draws up a promotion list, placing eligible teachers in the order in which they will be promoted. The lists for each grouping of teachers (e.g. secondary senior staff) is drawn up by a committee which includes a teacher elected by all teachers in that group. This committee applies a set of sui criteria to all the eligible teachers. The criteria are:

  1. Period of eligibility (assessment at advanced level qualifies a teacher for two additional years of eligibility).
  2. Standard of assessment.
  3. Length of service in senior position.
  4. Length of service in previous position.
  5. Academic qualifications above the minimum.
  6. War service.

These criteria are completely objective - there is no opportunity for subjectivity at this stage of the promotion procedure.

The new scheme was adopted after very detailed negotiation between the Education Department and the Institute, and very full consultation over a period of a year with the Institute’s membership. It seems to be regarded by teachers as a fair and just system which recognises ability, enables positions to be filled by the most suitable people, but spells out clearly the criteria for promotion and avoids the dangerous practice of setting one teacher against another.

Mr JACOBI:

– The position that applies in South Australia ought to have been consider prior to the formulation of this Bill. I ask the Minister to reconsider that position even at this late stage. The criterion which determines promotion in South Australia is divided into 2 parts - the standard qualities which should be possessed by all teachers and the extra qualities which give a teacher an edge of high quality. What :s important is that those categories are supported by the teachers themselves. They are in fact valid. They are based upon deep professional experience and they evince a greater concern for the needs of the student than for the rights of the teacher.

The Bill should be designed to establish a model teaching service not only containing all that is best in the current State systems of education but also seizing the opportunity to innovate and create new standards. However, it does little or nothing in this direction, preferring rather to establish an educational system modelled on the Commonwealth Public Service and reflecting Public Service attitudes. The Minister for Education and Science, in presenting the Bill, specifically rejects many of the submissions of the Australian Teachers’ Federation, and, in so doing, ignored the status of teaching as a profession and its consequential duty to run its own affairs.

Rather than reflecting the views of an organisation representing the 100,000 teachers of Australia, the Bill reflects the . views of this Government. Those views are essentially conservative in matters of education and procedures and are opposed to employee representation in decision-making.

One may, for example, look at the role of the Commissioner, who is to be given near dictatorial powers in the administration of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. He will determine the terms and conditions of employment. His determination here will be to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but nevertheless he will be the prime mover in establishing the terms and conditions. Consequently, industrial disputes and questions taken to arbitration will be founded on determinations already made by the employing authority. Surely the statutory machinery should be such as to allow a free interplay between employee and employer prior to arbitration.

The Commissioner is to be empowered to employ, promote, reduce in status and terminate employment. Some of these functions are to be carried out in tandem with machinery to protect teachers. But such machinery does not operate until after a decision has been made. If teacher representatives were provided for by statute as members of a decision-making panel they would then become parties to such decisions. For example, a discipline appeals board which examines a punishment after it has been inflicted does not always appear to act with justice, especially since the majority of the Board will be either CTS or Ministerial nominees. What is needed is a disciplinary appeals board to which a case would be referred for consideration before rather than after punishment and on which teachers would have parity of representation with the Government.

The Commissioner may terminate a teacher’s employment while on probation. Presumably he may do so on the general grounds of what the Bill calls ‘efficiency’. The criterion of efficiency is also used in relation to other functions of the Commissioner in relation to promotion, reduction in status and so on. The Minister for Education and Science has recognised the difficulty in defining efficiency but the Bill’s very use of the term and its definition within the Bill as an alliance of qualifications, aptitude, merit, diligence and good conduct raises the whole question of what education’ is as a professional activity. The point is that in a modern approach to the educational process in which the teacher is seen as a ‘resource’ it is excessively difficult to measure his teaching against another’s. Clearly I am not referring here to the purely administrative tasks associated with the performance of a teacher’s general duties. It is most important that a teacher should be able to deal with his clients - the students - in the manner he thinks appropriate as a professional and without regard to arbitrary requirements imposed from above. Therefore, in rejecting the submission of the Teachers Federation that more weight should be given to seniority, the Government is not merely asserting a belief in promotion by merit, but making assumptions about the educational process that educationists would regard as totally unacceptable.

Equally serious objections may be raised on the criteria for demotion and termination of appointment. Again such powers will lie in the hands of the Commissioner although, in respect to permanent employees, he will be also bound by the decisions of the Disciplinary Appeals Board and promotions appeal boards. Nevertheless, the way is opened through the Bill to penalise a teacher for behaviour which the Commissioner feels is inappropriate, yet may well be considered otherwise by a significant section of the teaching profession. Again in relation to re-classification - clause 26 (3)- - the way is open, without recourse to appeal nor to statutory consultation with the teachers’ organisation, to so re-classify a position as to improve the status of personnel without the opportunity for aspirants for promotion to compete.

The whole Bill is characterised by an approach which, despite the statement of the Minister for Education and Science that the Commonwealth Teaching Service should be outside the Public Service, is nevertheless heavily permeated with Public Service approaches to employment. An example is the description of teachers as officers and the consequent lack of distinction between teachers and administrative staff, the necessity for Public Service Board approval in the determination of terms and conditions of service, and more particularly the requirement that officers of the CTS should either affirm or swear the oath of allegiance. It is this most of all perhaps which characterises the teaching service as simply another Public Service department, since as a consequence of such a formalised act of allegiance a teacher would be effectively prevented from making public statements in any way critical of a particular government or Minister. Such an inhibition of professional freedom to engage in public educational debate is contrary to the spirit of any profession and an obvious example of the Public Service approach to the establishment of a Commonwealth Teaching Service. Once again, such provisions of the Bill are examples of a conservative rather than an enlightened spirit or approach and also of a bureaucratic approach to education questions.

I turn now to the matter of the 2 Boards, namely, the Promotions Appeals Board and the Disciplinary Appeal Board. Here again there is evidence of the unnecessary extent of the Commissioner’s powers. Neither Board has an independent chairman with the consequence that the teachers’ representative has always to face the Government nominees. In other words, there is an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. Again, as I mentioned earlier, both the Promotions Appeals Board and. the Disciplinary Appeal Board need a form of machinery which first deals with the problem with teacher representation rather than a system which scrutinises a decision already taken. In all such matters the Minister for Education and Science says that the Government would expect consultation with teachers, yet the Bill does not statutorily provide for any such consultation.

A key matter is the position of the Commissioner. The Australian Teachers Federation wishes to have 3 commissioners. But this is rejected on the grounds that the Service, at least initially, would be too small. Does the Minister consider that a Service with 2,000 teachers plus an ancillary staff and more than 40,000 pupils using capital investments of up to $100m and which has a wages bill of the order of $15m a year is a small service? It is nonsense. However, it is not the size of the Service which frankly is at issue here, but the important principle of teacher involvement iri the administration of their professional affairs. The Minister claimed that there are no strong grounds for providing specific representation of particular interests. When those interests are the interests of the teaching profession there is every reason for providing representation.

A similar point may be made in relation to the Minister’s rejection of the submission from the Federation that an advisory council should be established to act with the Commissioner. The Minister claims that such an advisory council would be more appropriate in the authorities. But this shows a false analysis of the nature of educational administration, again revealing a Public Service attitude to the whole problem. The point is that, whether at the level of the Commissioner or at the advisory council level, it is essential not to divorce administration from the educational process. Effective education depends on an administrative, structure in which education as such is the predominant interest. An example of this is the staffing of Education Departments in the States with ex-teachers. Consequently there is every need for 3 commissioners of which one is a teacher representative and for an advisory council to act with the Commissioner.

In the matter of teacher mobility between authorities and between the State systems and the Teaching Service, the statement of the Minister that ‘it is a good thing to facilitate movement of teachers between one school system and another, is a commendable principle. But let the Government shows its commitment to this principle by agreeing to finance the State systems in such a way as to ensure parity of financial emolument that the attraction of the Service does not lie in a Commonwealth financed higher salary scale than the States. Otherwise, the competition will be unfair and one more consequence of the shortfall of $ 1,433m between the real needs of education in the States and the amount the States in fact can provide.

Again in relation to the submissions of the Australian Teachers Federation, the Minister for Education and Science claims that it is not possible to specify whom the Commissioner should regard as qualified for employment. Why not? All States are now engaged in moves, at various stages of progress, towards establishing registration boards for teachers. Surely here was an opportunity for the Government to so legislate as to ensure that only those persons whose qualifications were acceptable to a registration board, established under the Act and on which there would be strong teacher representation, could be employed by the Commissioner. Instead, the Bill invests the Commissioner with power to determine standards of entry to the teaching profession. Not only is this one more example of the dictatorial powers of the Commissioner but it is also a blatant failure on the part of the Government to recognise teaching as a profession with a consequential right to establish standards of entry. But of course, in the Government’s mind education is simply another branch of the Public Service. This legislation reeks of the heavy hand of bureaucracy. It is against all professional and current educational concepts and directions. These concepts should have been incorporated in the Bill. I support the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– This is one occasion on which one, in a very qualified, modified, quiet and modest way can issue some congratulations to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In fact, here is an almost new operation and that has happened so rarely that one can only be pleased that at least the concept has arrived. However, I think my colleague the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) described the way members of the Opposition feel about this Bill. We are disappointed in it. I believe that when I say that, I express the view of all those people who are involved in the teaching services, particularly in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. As far as one can determine, they are equally disappointed and are also concerned.

This is a very complicated measure. It may well be simple enough to design a piece of legislation such as this. However, on our side of the House, there is an education committee which started to examine this legislation the night it was introduced and as time went on it became more apparent that there were problems in it which we found difficult to resolve without further consultation. I hope that the Committee stages of the Bill will be held over until some more mature consideration can be given to some parts of it. I speak now as one who has spent some 20 years in the Victorian teaching service and who, along with my colleagues, has retained fairly close contact with the teaching services of Australia. While the concept of this legislation is admirable we believeand I believe we are supported in this by those who are likely to be the customers or the clients or the victims, call them what you will, of this legislation - in that view.

Of course, there are some comments that one should make about this legislation. The history of the Commonwealth’s activities in education shows some characteristics which I feel are implicit in this Bill. First of all, the Commonwealth has come late, reluctantly and diffidently to the business of education. Fifteen years ago, when one spoke about education in this place, he would be told it was a State matter and that it was no concern of this Government. The right honourable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies said that he had no constitutional power to give aid to independent schools. So, as time has gone on, we have done a little here and there, but never anything properly. I do not believe that this Bill is the correct measure either. We have been launched on universities. The Government has finally accepted total responsibility for universities. The Commonwealth provides grants to the States for education in a hit and miss way. It drops things in here or there principally, it seems to me, when it feels that there should be some support given to the non-State school systems. The granting of State aid seems to have been designed to influence the ballot box rather than being concerned about education itself.

So, the Commonwealth Government has produced a patchwork of educational activities and I think that in a way this Bill is part of that patchwork. It has its advantages as a new concept and as a new idea, although I suppose there is not much new about it. The Commonwealth simply has accepted the responsibility to its teachers that it should have accepted long ago. It seems to me that this legislation shows some of the unfortunate deficiencies of the Commonwealth Public Service Act married to the New South Wales teaching service.

We do not condemn the Bill out of hand. Not every clause is bad. But I believe that some of the principles in it will produce extreme dissatisfaction. It is true that the service will perhaps be small in numbers and therefore the dissatisfaction may not be of a revolutionary character such as the Victorian dissatisfaction which embarrasses the Government and everybody else. What we have to do is to bring out not only the new concept of a Commonwealth teaching service but a new concept of how to establish it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the consultation with the teaching services involved has been totally inadequate. I am fortified in that by the statement issued by the teachers in the’ Australian Capital Territory that local teachers and the Australian Teachers Federation should have been involved in more meaningful discussions on this Bill. The Minister explained that he had consultations with them, but I think we have to get over the idea that a piece of legislation is a private, confidential document down to the last full stop until it lobs in here. I can think of no reason why the outline of the legislation should not have been submitted around the traps for people to consider it. I think that this obsession with proprietary secrecy is something-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It was.

Mr BRYANT:

– Well, I have not met anybody who said he saw it. I ask the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby), my technical adviser on education in this area, whether I am right in that

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Would the honourable member like me to clarify this point here, or would I be taking up too much of bis time?

Mr BRYANT:

– I am thinking of the actual legislation. This is what they say.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For a long while the New South Wales Teachers Federation said that we could not negotiate direct with the Australian Capital Territory teachers because they were part of the New South Wales Federation, and that condition prevailed until there was a change in office bearers in the New South Wales Federation.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am glad that the Minister is so tender towards the union movement. They would have been able to point out the unsuitability of the major provisions of this Bill, as we have been doing today. Last week I was in Alice Springs and I discussed the matter with teachers there. Unless they have totally misled me, they have no idea of the contents of this legislation. I presume that there were some copies of the legislation somewhere in Alice Springs, but I spoke to some 30 or 40 teachers - I spoke to the senior members of them in separate groups - and none of them had any. They had summaries or summations of it that they had acquired on a chance visit to Darwin. The people in Alice Springs are vitally concerned with this matter. So today I air freighted to them the necessary information - not that it will do them much good. I suppose the execution has been set and there is not much chance of a reprieve. The point about the people of the Northern Territory is that they have nowhere else to go. They are much more isolated in all sorts of ways than are the people here in this Territory.

The House may well accept the principle of the legislation tonight; I have no doubt it will. It ought to accept the principles that the Opposition has espoused in its amendment. But this is fundamentally a committee Bill. It is one in which the details of the conditions under which people are going to work ought to be decided clause by clause, and that ought to be decided after further and useful consultations with the people involved. What are the weaknesses of the legislation? First of all there is a single authority - the Commissioner. We say that there ought to be a commission. I am not even happy with that as a totality at this stage. I would think that this Commissioner in the initial use of his authority is much more powerful than any other person in the Australian public services - certainly in the Commonwealth Public Service, as I understand it. I believe that this is a very bad principle indeed. We are dealing with a profession. It is a profession that is becoming increasingly touchy and it is one that has to be handled with kid gloves in these matters. The teachers are not going to be pushed around any more. i do not think that the House ought to allow this Bill to pass. We ought not to tolerate the creation of this single authority - and a single man at that - with such unchallenged power in the first exercise of it. It is true that there are appeal provisions here and there. Appeals may be made to the Public Service Board and perhaps to the Abritration Commission, but in the immediate compact this seems to be a much more authoritarian structure than the average army unit.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– That is not right.

Mr BRYANT:

– Well, if the Minister reads the legislation he will see that the salaries, wages and so on can be determined by the Commissioner. There are ways in which this can be qualified. What other person operating a Commonwealth authority can do that? I believe that this is wrong. That is in the initial stages. Of course, the wage fixation can be qualified by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, by the Public Service Board or by the Commissioner himself. It seems that in the attempt to find devious ways of establishing some kind of protection for the inmates of the system all we have done is to place layer after layer of people who themselves have been signal failures in establishing satisfactory working relationships with staffs. This is not the way it ought to work. Then there is the matter of determination of qualifications. This again is the job of the Commissioner.

One point that I ought to make as strongly as possible relates to the power to post people hither, thither and yon. I do not quite know what is the actual authority inside the Commonwealth Public Service but generally speaking, as I understand it, any person with permanency cannot be shunted around hither, thither and yon. One of the great weaknesses of the public services of Australia and many of the large private commercial concerns such as banks has been the arbitrary and capricious way in which people are shunted off around the country, family life and everything else notwithstanding. Honourable members may say that this is the way these services work. That is not the way these services work. One of the more unhappy services in Australia in this regard is perhaps the teaching service in Victoria. But for something like 40 or 50 years a member of the Victorian teaching service, having once been appointed to a position has been able to stay there until something substantially changed the form of the position or he asks to be shifted. I have always been astonished at the failure of the other teaching services in Australia to adopt this simple formula. In Victoria as time has gone on the opportunity for change of position by the authority has been, I suppose, muted so that now you get annual moves instead of the previous haphazard movements.

Nobody is going to join a service with any great contentment about his future if today he can be teaching here and tomorrow he can be off to Tennant Creek. One may say that is not going to happen, but do not tell me that, inside the rather arbitrary structure that we have designed, that will not happen. The disciplinary provisions of the Bill seem to me to be slightly archaic. That is another question. What are the problems? We sense the problems. The people in the Australian Capital Territory want to be separate. They want to have a separate authority here. They do not want to be tangled up with the Northern Territory. I do not know that 1 am basically in sympathy with their view. I would agree that the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the Australian Capital Territory may well be advantaged by having the larger service at their disposal. I do not see that the Northern Territory ought to be placed at any disadvantage just because it is in a remote part of Australia. One of the advantages that the Austraiian educational systems did provide for the community generally was that no matter how remote you were there was an opportunity to have as qualified a teacher as if you were in a city area. We have to resolve this question.

The people of the Australian Capital Territory have for a long while been campaigning for a separate authority of their own. I have always said, and I say it still, that this is a very good opportunity for an experiment in Australian education administration. But it should be possible to solve the problem of the administration of the Australian Capital Territory as a separate unit and the creation of the Northern Territory as a separate unit but with interchangeability between them. I can think of no great difficulty in arranging interchangeability between them even if the services are separate. Therefore I do not see that the differences in this area are insurmountable. The point has been made on several counts that we could not have a 3 -man commission because, after all, there will be only a couple of thousand teachers. I think that is a slightly immoral argument. When you are dealing with one’s professional career and his whole livelihood you have to handle it carefully whether for one person or a thousand people. Of course, 2,000 people is not an insignificant number.

What is a career structure? Perhaps in a way we have not taken a good, long hard look at this question of what the teaching service is about. Basically, teachers in their class rooms are equal no matter what they are, teaching. The teacher in room 8 is basically on an equal task with the teacher in room 32, no matter what the subject is and no matter how old he is. I suppose the only distinction one ought to make is in relation to qualifications. I believe that we should be taking a much closer view of the way in which the teaching service is structured and see whether we cannot design a non-competitive career structure in which a person does not need to be promoted above his contemporary. A few years ago people from Canada came out here recruiting teachers. They were astonished at the flood of teachers who applied for positions, particularly from Melbourne. One of the things that impressed me about the Canadian system was the salary structure based upon qualifications and years of experience. A person could go right to the top of the service, without having to be promoted over somebody else.

I believe it is fair to say that the teacher in his classroom should be equal to every other teacher and I think that the pyramidal system which is the infliction of the Commonwealth Public Service seems to be inherent in this scheme. We ought to be attempting to solve some of those problems which are part of the critical basis of education in Australia particularly the teaching services. Probably the first problem is that of morale. All the evidence is that the morale of the teaching services in Australia is at a low order. There are all sorts of reasons for this. Some of them have to do with inadequate environment in which they teach, some with the inadequate salaries and all that goes with it. But there is no doubt that the morale of the teaching services in Australia is at a low ebb.

The principal weakness in the system is the authoritarianism in the schools. It appears to me that inside the aspect of the authority of the Commissioner this is a totally authoritarian system and that is one of the reasons why we raise strong objections to this Bill. Then there are questions of the fixation of salaries, qualifications etc. As I said earlier, this is a complicated piece of legislation. I do not quite know how we should tackle it, looking at it with the views that we have. The Opposition has had people who have examined this legislation from the view point of industrial conditions, salary fixation, the rights and powers of the Commissioner and so on. It seems to me that there may be a strong case for 3 different authorities operating in this system. The question of salary fixation is a difficult and different question. Nobody in Australia has resolved it properly yet. Nobody in Australia has been able satisfactorily to satisfy the professional aims of the teachers to be equal to other people around them.

One of the great difficulties of teaching services in Australia is that qualified teachers are so numerous. In raising the salary of a qualified person with an Arts degree and a Diploma in Education or some other postgraduate qualification in another service it would involve 10, 20 or 100 persons but when dealing with teaching services it may mean dealing with thousands. Therefore, there has been a tendency inside the Australian education system to keep the pay for qualified teachers lower than people with equal qualifications in other areas. We ought to be able to overcome that. I do not think that the Commissioner is going to be able to overcome that. I do not see that if there has been this considerable search throughout Australia for a satisfactory wage fixation system and none has yet been devised that one single man operating as the Commissioner is going to resolve the problem.

I put it to the Minister that in the Committee stage of this Bill this is an area that we ought to examine very thoroughly. I have no doubt that when the Bill reaches the Senate this will be the case anyhow and therefore I suggest that we make haste slowly and that we proceed to complete the second reading stage to enable the people scattered throughout the continent who are involved - we are dealing with their lives, hopes, fears and concerns - to have adequate time to consider all the things that have been said in this debate and perhaps to repeat them and allow proper submissions to be made to the Minister, his Department or any authority decided upon. I say emphatically that unless a lot of guarantees are given to teachers in the Northern Territory they will not stay in the service. They will not stay unless there is a guarantee about the security of tenure and about the fundamental equality of the service in which they elect to teach. If they are in the Northern Territory, for instance, they will be leaving the South Australian teaching service to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. We have to ensure by some sort of guarantee - I do not know what the formula could be - that these people will have as satisfactory a teaching career in the Northern Territory as they would have had under the South Australian system. Unless that is guaranteed we will lose nearly all of them.

The same will apply in the Australian Capital Territory. No matter how desirable it may be to live here unless the professional aspiration of the teacher is guaranteed in some way we will lose all of the teachers in the Australian Capital Territory. One of their great advantages has been that they have been able to operate in a very large teaching service. There is no reason why we should not be able to create for a smallish teaching service the conditions which apply in large teaching services. I am certain that it will take a lot more thought and consideration and particularly consultation than we have seen in this measure although such as it is we are glad that at least it has started to see the light of day.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– Being the seventh speaker in this debate it is hard not to say things that have already been said but I find myself in this frame of mind that I cannot completely agree with the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that this Bill represents a concept that is admirable. It is acceptable perhaps - reluctantly acceptable - but even if it is a concept that is admirable, the form in which it has been presented and the machinery that it provides is surely to be deplored. In fact if one spends some time looking through it, it will be seen that it has more in common with a criminal statute than a Bill for an employment service to be set up to provide for teachers to teach in the schools throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. I am minded to say this: I think the worrying things about this Bill are not so much what is in it, although they are bad enough, but what is not in it. For example, it is well known and it has been said by previous speakers, that this is in essence an employing service. The Commissioner will essentially employ teachers according to very orthodox, very authoritarian methods with disciplinary powers, criminal sanctions and all sorts of things that other speakers have spoken about. But who is going to be the teaching authority?

If one looks at the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) one finds almost nothing at all said about that. The concept is there for a Commonwealth teaching service for the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and the other Commonwealth Territories. But I do not think any great merit is to be given to the Commonwealth for suddenly introducing this Bill because I think it is well known that the Government’s hand was forced and that it would have limped along and dragged its feet as it has done so often in this field if its hand had not been forced. The Government has had its hand forced by the action of the South Australian Government in announcing the withdrawal of its teachers from the Northern Territory. The Government was faced suddenly as if it had fallen out of bed on the wrong side with the prospect that the New South Wales Government would sooner or later do the same thing, certainly with the approach of the oft talked about crisis in education. So something had to be done. This Bill has all the earmarks of urgency and haste about it otherwise why were no attempts made to have an authority in this case or in that case? The authority is just referred to in small letters; it does not even commence with a capital A. It is going to administer the teaching service of the Australian Capital Territory and of tha

Northern Territory but where is it? Of course the Minister glosses over this in his second reading speech like a good advocate I suppose and he says:

There has been no attempt to spell out in the Bill at this stage the precise details of how the teaching service will operate. Rather the Bill sets out the framework within which the service may operate. Decisions as to how it operates will be framed hi appropriate regulations under sections of the Bill and will be available for consideration by the Parliament.

We know how the Parliament considers delegated legislation in this House. The Minister went on to say:

As the requirements of the school systems change and develop so appropriate regulations will be drafted.

I understand that the Minister has said on some occasions when he has been challenged over this Bill that there is no need to worry because his heart is in the right place - I do not say that I am quoting him literally - and he will not administer this Bill as it would be possible to administer it. It is so wide as to enable any Minister to put his own framework and his own personality on it just as it will be possible for the Commissioner when he is appointed to put his own framework and his own personality and his own stamp and imprimatur on it. But what if this Minister, giving him credit, is no longer the Minister for Education and Science tomorrow? We know the history of the Government on this sort of thing. Suppose he is replaced by somebody else who has a different style, a different method and different approach to education. Where are we left then? Is this how we make laws for the people of the Australian Capital Territory? Is this how we make laws for the Northern Territory? Do we let administration of the laws depend on the whim, the personality or the mood of a particular Minister and his power to delegate legislation and lay it on the table of the House as an ordinance or as regulations which go through this House and the Senate? Perhaps the Senate is not so much affected because it has a committee to deal with these matters, but in this House no-one has an opportunity adequately to consider them. If one looks at how regulations are to be made, I suggest the punch line will be found. Clause S3 states:

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters that are required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed. . . .

I do not want to suggest that there is anything sinister in that but it is a worrying choice of words. I would like to know, and I think that the people of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and the other Territories - I speak certainly for the people of the Australian Capital Territory - want to know who is to be the authority, particularly here in the Australian Capital Territory before these regulations are made. To whom will the Commissioner delegate the powers that he exercises under this Bill? He will have power to delegate all his powers. He can virtually abdicate his powers, although not the power to delegate itself.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is the Commissioner, not the Minister.

Mr ENDERBY:

– He can delegate?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

Mr ENDERBY:

– So we will not even have any control over that delegation. A sort of abdication system is to operate. It is as though a cloak was pulled across the face of this Parliament. It might not be a waste of time if I mention the history of the campaign, if I may call it that, for better education in the Australian Capital Territory. It has been adverted to by some of the previous speakers. The Australian Capital Territory is an unusual part of the Commonwealth in one sense, not because the people here regard themselves as entitled to any better treatment by way of education than the rest of their fellow citizens throughout the Commonwealth although they are very concerned about education. The figures show that they are concerned. The Australian Capital Territory has 5 times the national average of people possessing tertiary education or higher school certificates or the equivalent. If one looks at the correspondence pages of the ‘Canberra Times’ one sees that there are periods when they literally erupt with letters on the question of education. Honourable members would know that I present a petition on education here in one form or another almost every day asking for one of 2 things - an inquiry into education in the Australian Capital Territory to precede the setting up of an independent authority here, and the setting up of an independent authority. There can be no doubt that there is great demand for an independent authority here. It is that demand that the Minister and his Government have seen fit to ignore and reject. They have also rejected the unanimous wishes of the Combined Parents and Citizens Association of the Australian Capital Territory. They ignored the wishes of the secondary school teachers association. The Minister takes some comfort from the fact that he consulted with the New South Wales Teachers Federation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– With the Australian Teachers Federation.

Mr ENDERBY:

– And the Australian Teachers Federation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Australian Teachers Federation was meant to coordinate for all the representative groups in the community.

Mr ENDERBY:

-I ask the Minister whether he consulted the New South Wales Teachers Federation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I consulted with the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation later.

Mr ENDERBY:

– My information is that he consulted the New South Wales Teachers Federation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– And the Australian Capital Territory teachers.

Mr ENDERBY:

– He did that only 3 weeks before the tabling of this Bill in this House.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– They are part of the Australian Teachers Federation.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I do not wish to engage in an exchange across the floor like this but I repeat that my information - and the Minister will have an opportunity to deny it at the right time - is that he consulted with the New South Wales Teachers Federation on one occasion 3 weeks before the tabling of this Bill in this House. At that stage the Bill would have been in its final form. He might care to tell us whether or not he changed it in any way after that consultation. He also saw the Australian Teachers Federation representatives on only 2 occasions. He might tell us whether he adopted any of their recommendations. My information is that none of their advice was adopted. This is reflected in the Bill, which provides for a single commission, no advisory body and a disciplinary code that can be used against teachers in a way that will regulate them and encase them in a rigid system which is completely inconsistent with any kind of professionalism.

On that point, one only has to look at what is going on in New South Wales at this time. We find that disciplinary action is being taken against New South Wales teachers under a similar provision of the New South Wales Act and Regulations because teachers are refusing,and rightly refusing, to work additional periods imposed upon them not only because it is part of the policy of the union to which they belong but because out of conscience they believe that to work those extra periods under those circumstances is unconscionable and bad for the profession they represent and belong to and bad for the students that they exist to serve. What is happening? They are being called up. I do not mean they are being called up for national service but they are being penalised, subjected to disciplinary powers, fined, treated like criminals, convicted and perhaps being told of their right of appeal. What sort of teaching service is this to foist in 1972 on the Commonwealth Territories? It is exactly the same thing. It is of no good the Minister saying, as he might: ‘It will not work that way. I will appoint a nice Commissioner. He will not really think that way.’ How do we know what will happen? Look at what has been done in New South Wales and what is being done there now. The same old type of legislation is again being foisted upon people.

One point has to be made strongly. The people of the Australian Capital Territory who are concerned about this problem regard this legislation in its present form as being temporary and something that must be righted at the first available opportunity. We know the realities of power in this House. We know the numbers on the other side of the House and the numbers on this side of the House. I repeat that the people of the Australian Capital Territory who are interested in this matter regard the Bill in this form as being a temporary measure. There is another feature that strikes me as being odd. Why on earth - I wish the Minister would listen to this instead of going over and talking to his professional advisers - do we require an oath of allegiance? What are we trying to do? Are we trying to treat teachers like soldiers, sailors or airmen?

Mr Calder:

– Why not?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Why should you? Would you have doctors or dentists treated in that sense? Clause 20 provides that an officer must make and subscribe, before the Commissioner, a person appointed by the Commissioner or a justice of the peace, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in accordance with the form of oath or affirmation in the Second Schedule of the Bill. I do not think I am being particularly difficult on this point, but let us look at the form of the oath. It is straight forward and there is an alternative form of affirmation. The oath reads:

I, AB, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.

Clause 35 (10.) gives a comprehensive account of the forms of misconduct that a teacher can be guilty of. They include wilful disobedience or disregard of a direction applicable to him as an officer. Where is the professionalism? Where is the independence? Where is the maturity that one would surely expect the teacher to possess when we treat him like a child and say: We will whip you, cane you, suspend you, fine you*? What sort of men will be recruited to the Service to pass on concepts and notions of . maturity and liberalism? I do not mean the kind of liberalism practised by honourable members opposite but true liberalism. How are we to recruit these men when we have a system like this. A teacher may be considered guilty of misconduct if he is negligent or careless in the discharge of his duties, or if he is inefficient or incompetent by reason of causes within his own control. He may be found guilty of misconduct if he has used intoxicating liquor or drugs to excess. Suppose he has a 21st birthday party for his son in his own home and he drinks too much. Is he to be treated as being guilty of misconduct and fined? That is what the Bill says. Honourable members opposite need not shake their heads. That is what the Bill says.

It is laughable and ridiculous that a man should be considered guilty of misconduct if, having made and subscribed an oath of affirmation under sub-clause (2.) of clause 20 of this Bill, he did or said something in violation of that oath or affirmation. Let us suppose he teaches history. Suppose he teaches the history of the glorious revolution of 1688. What are we going to do? Are we to sack him, suspend him or fine him? Yet the Government tries to put these provisions in a statute in 1972. I ask it: Where is its imagination? I could continue with this sort or argument for a long while but other speakers have described the situation. The legislation is a terrible disappointment to the people of the Australian Capital Territory and I am assured that it is a terrible disappointment to the people of the Northern Territory. No-one argues with the idea that greater flexibility would come from a teaching service that extended beyond the area of the Australian Capital Territory, beyond the area of the Northern Territory and into other Commonwealth Territories. With some kind of flexibility there could be a rapid or easy means of transference by a person who chooses to go from the Australian Capital Territory to Darwin or to Port Moresby to teach. However it is not my idea of progress to provide that a person may be directed to go somewhere and if he does not do so he is guilty of an offence. I support the amendment.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Before addressing myself to the provisions of this Bill I should like to comment on what some previous speakers have said. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) questioned the necessity for an oath of allegiance. I ask: Why not? The Australian flag flies over every government school and the teachers, with the school children, stand before that flag. Surely they will not be a bunch of hypocrites standing there and not respecting the flag, as he would suggest. The honourable member questioned also the teaching authority, but I remind honourable members that in sub-clause (2.) of clause 16 provision is made for the authority in the Northern Territory to be the Department of Education and Science which now is the authority. It is considered to be doing a first class job in the Northern Territory at this moment. Of course, the honourable member was speaking about the Australian

Capital Territory, which is his affair, but I am speaking about the Northern Territory and I happen to know that the Department is doing a first class job and I am sure will continue to do so. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory doubted whether the Department would be able to administer the practical side of running schools in the Northern Territory.

Many criticisms emanated from the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) who placed great emphasis on the fact that the Commissioner will be responsible to the Public Service Board. From my reading of the Bill I gather that the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will have to consult the Public Service Board about terms and conditions of employment for teachers, but this will not affect his flexibility in staffing schools. Nor does the fact that the Commissioner must consult the Public Service Board mean that changes cannot be made to meet unusual circumstances. The Commonwealth Teaching Service will not be bogged down by regulations in respect of terms and conditions since the Bill is framed in such a way that terms and conditions will be determined by the Commissioner. He will be able to make his determinations without having them incorporporated in statutory rules. We have heard much criticism of what will be the Commissioner’s position and about his being bound by the Public Service Board, but I do not think that this is so. However bts determinations will have to be stated clearly and be freely available to members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service and such other persons who may be interested in them, so it is obvious that the honourable member for Fremantle has raised a furphy. The honourable member said also that there would be no flexibility in the setup as it relates to the Commissioner but I remind him that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his second reading speech:

The aim of the present legislation is to create a teaching service sufficiently flexible to enable lt to staff soundly more than one school system without imposing on these systems an undue degree of uniformity.

The whole idea of the Bill is to introduce a teaching service that is flexible and which can operate. The honourable member for Fremantle stated also that teachers were excluded from the governing of the Service. Clause 30 provides for a promotions appeal board on which teachers will be represented. Again, under clause 37, the same will apply in respect of the Disciplinary Appeal Board. I heard various honourable members talking about disciplinary action but, after all, the teachers will elect a representative to the Disciplinary Appeal Board.

I think that a lot of brittle criticism has been aimed at this Bill. The honourable member for Fremantle complained that the Commissioner will be in sole charge and that this is an inflexible arrangement, but paragraph (a) of clause S3 states: providing for and in relation to the appointment of committees of persons to advise the Commissioner in connection with the performance of his function under this Act;

The Commissioner can have people to advise him in connection with his duties. I know that the Commissioner will have a tremendous job but provision is made for him to seek assistance and advice. Again, on the question of flexibility, in his second reading speech the Minister, referring to the Bill, said:

It provides powers under which the Commissioner will have considerable flexibility to develop the Teaching Service so as to meet in the most effective way possible the needs of the Commonwealth and of the school systems. . . .

Later, he said:

There has been no attempt to spell out in the Bill at this stage the precise details. . . .

However the Minister has given sufficient information to show that the Government is prepared to meet the situation in a flexible way. I think that the Opposition is cheeseparing in much of its criticism. 1 heard someone say that this Bill was created in a panic fashion because the South Australian Government decided to withdraw its teachers from, the Northern Territory. It is a fact that the South Australian Government intends withdrawing its teachers from the Northern Territory so something has to be done about it; and something is being done. This Bill is designed to make arrangements in the next few years to fill that gap. I am speaking here only about the Northern Territory but the same situation can apply to the Aus- tralian Capital Territory, Papua New Guinea and various other territories and positings overseas.

The delay in this legislation, which has been caused by various procedures of this House and of the Parliament in general, has resulted in quite some concern among the teachers in the Northern Territory who were attached to the South Australian teaching service and who were desirous of staying in the Northern Territory and not being under the South Australian teaching service. There are quite a number of those. Listening to speeches tonight it would seem that the general opinion of most honourable members who have spoken is that it is some kind of disadvantage to be posted to a place like Papua New Guinea or the Northern Territory. This strikes me as a narrow-minded and typically insular Australian Labor Party attitude which concentrates on the city entirely. The Australian Labor Party is not interested in places like the Northern Territory. I am not certain that it was not the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who mentioned being posted to the Northern Territory. After all, the Northern Territory is one-sixth of Australia. Why would a teacher not wish to be posted to, say, places like Papunya within view of the fabulous Haasts Bluff or to Nhulunbuy on the fabulous Rainbow Beach at Gove. A distance of about 2,000 miles is involved here. Any teacher seeking to broaden his mind could board at Darwin a Qantas aircraft and go on the recently introduced service straight to Papua New Guinea. This is what teachers should be looking to and the Commonwealth Teaching Service envisages that teachers can move around in Australia. They can even go to Canberra from the Northern Territory and it would be a great advantage for them to come here, I am sure.

The narrowness of opportunity in the past was certainly a real worry to the teachers but the introduction of this Commonwealth teaching service will give teachers a chance to move around not only within Australia and Papua New Guinea but also to overseas postings without losing seniority. Many teachers are interested in teaching Aborigines but under the scheme which has been operating to date they were enlisted in the Northern Territory Administration school system. Many of them went to these fabulous places I have mentioned. Now the 2 teaching services will be integrated and teachers will be able to go from one place to another. There will not be 2 parallel teaching services in virtually one area of a State or Territory. This is a tremendous advantage because hitherto men and women have lost’ seniority in transferring from one service to another. I know quite a few of them who have done this in the interests of teaching. They have transferred from the community schools to the welfare schools or vice versa. The proposed service will lead to a widening of the knowledge and approach of teachers.

It has been said that the Commonwealth teaching service should have been set up as an autonomous body. It has been set up with a Commissioner who is responsible to the Minister and not to the Public Service Board. Under clause 53 the Commissioner has the authority to be advised by advisory committees. So the service is put outside the Public Service. The Government considered the position of the teachers and they will come under the authority of their own Federation. A lot of consideration was given to this matter prior to the introduction of the Bill. In the Northern Territory schools will be under the existing authority, that is, the Director of Education. He and his staff are doing a very fine job. The Opposition is quibbling with regard to its amendments. I commend the Bill to the House. I look forward to its being a tremendous step forward in the education of students in the Northern Territory. i support it fully. It should be a major success because it will give the teachers in the Territory, Papua New Guinea and the Australian Capital Territory a chance to move around and learn what goes on in other parts of Australia and overseas territories.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Again I would like to thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate, some of whom have clearly done a good deal of work on a highly technical Bill. As a starting point I would like to take the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) who led for the Opposition. The amendment which has 5 parts. I am afraid that -in this instance I cannot say he is one who has made adequate examination of the Bill because 3 of the parts of the amendment which he has moved are capable of achievement under the Bill as it stands. Part (b) of the amendment reads: for the heightening of professional standards of teachers in the Commonwealth Teaching Service by empowering the Commission to negotiate for the establishment of Faculties of Education in universities where necessary, including the Australian National University.

Under clause 16 (8.) the Commissioner would have power to do that if he believed it to be in the interests of the Commonwealth Teaching Service and of the education authorities or departments to which he has a responsibility to supply teachers. Part (c) of the amendment - this is the second part of the amendment which is already covered by the Bill - reads: for the active encouragement of recruitment and training of teaching staff, nol only for Papua New Guinea should it desire this assistance, but for other islands of the Pacific the Governments of which seek such aid.

Clause 16 (3) (b) provides the Commissioner with the power to do just that, I am advised. The next part of the amendment provides:

The provision of an advisory council to assist the commission, this council to be representative of the community and of educational research and administrative bodies.

Clause 53 will give the Commissioner the power to establish advisory bodies or committees. 1 will say a little more about that point in a moment or two. So 3 of the 5 legs of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Fremantle are in fact already incorporated in the Bill as it has been presented to the House.

A number of detailed points have been made. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) made some point about the consultation that had taken place, as did other honourable members. There was consultation with the Australian Teachers Federation. My Department and I regarded it as appropriate that the Australian Teachers Federation be the co-ordinating authority for its own constituent parts. The New South Wales Teachers Federation and the Australian Capital Territory Branch of that Federation are of course parts of the Australian Teachers Federation. After a change in office bearers in the New South Wales Teachers Federation, when objec tions to our speaking directly with the AusSouth Wales Teachers Federation had been removed, we did have extensive discussions with that branch, I think to the advantage of both parties as became evident in a Press statement which appeared in the Canberra Times’ as a result of the discussions.

There were substantial discussions with the Australian Capital Territory Parents and Citizens Committee. I must admit that there are some differing views about the way in which that committee believes the Commonwealth Teaching Service might affect some future Australian Capital Territory education authority. Members of the Committee believe that the presence of this service will constrain such an authority. I have tried to suggest to them that TI will not and, in fact, will open up options for future education in the Australian Capital Territory. A number of people have made a point, which is not valid, that the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner would be responsible to the Commonwealth Public Service Board. It is true that his determinations are subject to the approval of the Board, but only in the same sense as the salaries, awards and conditions determined by the executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in relation to its employees are subject to the approval of the Public Service Board.

The Commissioner is responsible to the Minister of the day. At the express request of the Australian Teachers Federation, meeting their wishes, we have provided that teachers wishing to appeal against determinations of the Commissioner will appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and not to the Public Service Arbitrator. This was done at the request of the Australian Teachers Federation. That request was met. Indeed, looking through the correspondence received from the Australian Teachers Federation on 8th February and the matters which the Federation put to us, it is clear that that body wanted a 3-man commission and not a commissioner. I will come to the detailed argument about that point is just a moment.

The points made about open advertisements for positions and about temporary employees, I believe, have been met.

Concerning the structure of the school establishment, this is more appropriate to be dealt with by an education authoritymy Department for the Northern Territory, or the Department of the Interior for schools in the Australian Capital Territory - than by the Commonwealth Teaching Service. I think the point made in the letter about transfers and promotions has largely been met. The question of accouchement leave will no doubt come up for discussion because I understand that the honourable member for Fremantle is to move an amendment concerning it. The letter from the Federation also referred to additional minor penalties which it felt should be introduced into the legislation. This was in fact done at their request. I think that was all the Federation had to say about penalties.

We valued the discussions. We believe that they have been useful and that view is confirmed by a letter addressed to Sir Hugh Ennor, Secretary of my Department, that I wish tq read. It is dated 3rd February 1972 and states:

I write to thank you for the consideration and hospitality extended to me and the other Australian Teachers Federation representatives during our visit to Canberra at the beginning of this week. We are all very appreciative of your kindness. I am sure we have gained a great deal of benefit from our discussions with you and your officers. We now have a clear picture of the intention of the proposed legislation.

Further, the talks did much to allay the fears of our Northern Territory representatives. You may also know that thanks to the assistance of your officers George Smith and 1 were able to visit 2 of your newer schools in the Australian Capital Territory. We are most grateful for the opportunity to visit those schools. Kindest regards,

Yours sincerely, David Hunt

David Hunt is President of the Australian Teachers Federation. That letter hardly seems to confirm the view expressed by some people in relation to the negotiations and the discussions that have taken place. I do not think that view is entirely kind, although I can understand the point of view of the honourable member for Wills in relation to what he said concerning this Bill.

I wish to mention a few matters - iri detail, I am afraid - in respect of discussions I had with the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. I was expressly asked to clarify some aspects of the legislation when closing the debate at the second reading stage. These matters have not been mentioned by honourable members opposite or other spokesmen during the debate, but I made it plain that I would put these questions on the record for the people concerned. As a result of our discussions I think the representatives of the Federation felt happier about some aspects of the legislation.

The Federation raised, as other people did, the question of a commission rather than a commissioner. A lot of attention and thought has been given to this question. The Government came to its decision because of the size of the job to be done. For some years the Commonwealth Teaching Service would not be of a size to provide a work load which would justify the appointment of more than one commissioner. Another factor considered was the nature of the job being done. The Commissioner and the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be concerned with the employment of teachers, not with school systems in which Commonwealth teachers will work. I think there was some misunderstanding about this point in the earlier stages. Such duties are not appropriate perhaps for a representative commission. i emphasise the words ‘representative commission’. The area of responsibility of the job that is to be done was the third determining factor. The Commissioner will not be concerned with the education policies of the school systems to which Commonwealth teachers are made available.

The number of classifications and types of schools, the operations of those schools, the planning, design, construction and maintenance of school buildings and other educational facilities of the particular systems would all be matters within the responsibility of the education authority which is at the moment either my Department or the Department of the Interior. In considering the possibility of having a commission which would include representatives elected by teachers, regard has to be had to the total provisions of the Bill. The Bill contains provision for appeals against decisions of the Commission and ultimately for matters relating to terms and conditions to be decided by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The Government believes that having regard to the work load and functions of the Commissioner it is preferable to have the service, at least at this stage, administered by a single commissioner subject to the checks and balance built into the legislation. The view has also been reported that it would be unthinkable to establish medical or legal commissions, as has been mentioned in this debate, without representatives elected from the profession concerned. However, in many other fields of employment under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, doctors, engineers and lawyers are employed and they do not have any direct representation on the Public Service Board and in the Public Service machinery.

Mr Bryant:

– But the employees do, as a general mass.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– On the Public Service Board? I do not think so. There is an analogy there of which I think the Opposition might well take note. Certainly members of other professions working in the Commonwealth Public Service have not found it to their disadvantage to be without the kind of representation that is suggested by the Opposition and which has been suggested in other representations that have been put to me.

One of the questions that has been raised by teachers in the Australian Capital Territory and by other people is the respective responsibilities of the education authority and the Commonwealth Teaching Service. I think that a good part of the misconceptions and misunderstandings have occurred because people felt that the Commonwealth Teaching Service would be doing some or many of the things for which an education authority would be responsible. In my second reading speech I mentioned that the function of the Commissioner is limited to providing qualified teachers for service in particular areas under appropriate terms and conditions. It is necessary to reiterate that there will be a division of responsibility between the Commissioner ind an education authority. The education authority will be responsible for the opera:on of a school system. It will also be - ^sponsible for exercising matters delegated i lo it by the Commissioner in respect of the teachers employed in the school systems being conducted by that authority. It is necessary to emphasise that an education authority will have the responsibility for obtaining, through the normal means, Appropriation Acts, the funds necessary to employ members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. The Commissioner will meet the demands of education authorities for teachers, but those demands will of course have to have regard to the way in which the authority intends using the funds made available to it. It was this thought which led to the statement in my second reading speech that the education authorities will determine in the wider sense the composition of the Teaching Service.

Much has been said about the power of transfer of an officer to another position of equal classification where there are excess officers. I should have thought that quite obviously this is a situation which arises only as a last resort. The Commissioner, the Minister and the Department will want a contented Commonwealth Teaching Service. It will be necessary to supply teachers to the remote area schools or to schools which might be in difficult situations. If a school closes because of a shift or change in population, it might not be possible to offer all the teachers at that school that is closed the sort of job in the particular area that they want. That is a necessary consequence of employment in any large service. So it is a power, if you like, of last resort. The person responsible for the Service, I believe, must have that power. Obviously he will use it with discretion. He will want a contented service. He will not appoint teachers capriciously all over the place in a manner which will lead to great discontent because, if he does, he will not be able to have a contented service and therefore he will not be able to fulfil his own responsibilities.

The teachers in the Australian Capital Territory also raised with me the question of the preservation of existing and accruing rights of State teachers joining the Commonwealth Teaching Service. Insofar as it is constitutionally possible, the legislation does this. For example, it preserves the long service leave entitlement of State officers under the Commonwealth Furlough Act, and it enables State teachers to transfer superannuation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Where a situation develops in which members of a State teaching service are being replaced by Commonwealth teachers - for example, in Northern Territory community schools - the transfer of members of the State teaching service to the Commonwealth would be on the basis of negotiation in each individual case. It would not be possible to include in the legislation provisions that would spell out how the legislation will apply in each individual case. I believe that these provisions will work reasonably well.

The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) ridiculed in general the question of persons who join the Commonwealth Teaching Service being required to subscribe an oath or affirmation of allegiance. It has been suggested that this could get in the way of a teacher fulfilling his particular functions and responsibilities. I do not see that it can get in the way of a teacher fulfilling his particular responsibilities any more than it stands in the way of a member of this Parliament fulfilling his responsibilities. I had difficulty in understanding the remarks of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory in this regard, and I hope that they will not have a great deal of support.

Teachers’ representatives, and the Opposition also, have indicated their wish that there should be an advisory committee to assist the Commissioner in relation to determinations made by the Commissioner in respect of the educational qualifications and other qualifications required of persons being appointed to the Service. I have already indicated that clause 53 of the Bill provides for the appointment of committees of persons to advise the Commissioner. I would consider it most appropriate if, in determining the qualifications for the appointment of persons to the teaching service, the Commissioner took advantage of this provision and had available to him the advice of a committee appointed under the provisions of the new Act. But I do not believe that I or the Government should bind the hands of the Commissioner. I think that he should chart his own path in these matters.

Clause 25 provides that officers shall perform duties as directed by the Commissioner. Again, the teachers’ representatives have indicated that they believe that under this provision the Commissioner could well specify such matters as teaching loads and class sizes. The question of what effect the determinations by education authorities will have on the establishment, that is on the number of teachers to be employed to meet the requirements set down by the education authorities, will be a matter which will be determined having regard to the duties and responsibilities set down by the Commissioner in respect of each classification of teaching. I regard this as a power that, in large measure, is likely to be delegated to the education authority. But at the same time, I would not believe that the fact that the power is in this Bill is a protection for teachers. In this sense I would see the Commissioner standing in that position in relation to the teacher. I should like to ask the Opposition to give me a few more minutes in which to speak. (Extension of time granted.) I thank the House.

There are one or two other matters which the teachers in the Australian Capital Territory wanted to be clarified and I shall continue to give that clarification. There is provision in the Bill relating to reclassification of positions. The Bill contains the requirement that a position is to be declared vacant whenever its classification is altered. Teachers’ representatives have interpreted this as operating against the interests of teachers, and they have suggested that when the classification of a position is altered the occupant of a position should continue in it at the higher classification. However, this proposal could be manifestly unfair since it could lead to the situation in which an officer would be occupying a position at a classification to which other officers have a higher claim in respect of qualifications, experience and aptitude.

Again, teachers’ representatives have referred to clause 29 (3.) (b) which provides that in respect of positions above a certain level of salary, the Promotions Appeal Board shall not determine an appeal against a promotion but shall make a report to the Commissioner, and upon receipt of the report the Commissioner shall determine the appeal or appeals. They have suggested that such an arrangement does not provide for any real appeal from the original provisional promotion, lt is envisaged that the Commissioner will delegate to education authorities the responsibility for making provisional promotions in respect of promotion positions in their schools. If there are no appeals the Commissioner would merely confirm the promotions made by the education authority. If there are appeals, the appeals will be considered by the Promotions Appeal Board.

The composition of the Appeals Board will include a teachers’ representative and a chairman appointed by the Minister. I would not regard this person as being a boss’s man. as some honourable member indicated. 1 think that he could be a retired magistrate or somebody in whom both sides would have confidence. That is how I would see it working. I repeat that the chairman would be nominated by the Minister and the member would be nominated by the Commissioner. In nominating the member of a promotions appeal board the Commissioner would have regard to the need to place on that board a person who would have direct knowledge of the education system and of the duties of the particular position under consideration. Therefore his nominee would be very likely a member of the education authority. In those circumstances - even in the case where the final determination is made by the Commissioner - there will have been a full operation of the appeal system in which the Commissioner has not been directly involved.

Teacher representatives have also raised particular points concerning disciplinary provisions and have questioned their inclusion in the Bill. However, the provisions of this Bill are similar to those of the legislation governing other forms of Commonwealth employment and do not impose on members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service standards or requirements different from those which have been generally accepted as reasonable by Commonwealth employees. The disciplinary provisions of the Bill were discussed and made known to the representatives of the teacher unions at a meeting on 1st February of this year.

The only point brought forward by the unions was the need to provide for lesser penalties than were included in the Bill at that stage. This view was confirmed in a letter from the Australian Teachers Federation dated 8th February 1972. As a result of the representations, clause 33 now contains 2 provisions not included in the Bill originally drafted on 1st February. Those provisions are that the Commissioner may caution or reprimand an officer or fine him a sum not exceeding $40. The remarks of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory do not seem to lie well beside those views expressed by the Australian Teachers Federation. Our understanding is that the inclusion of those 2 penalties met the requirements of the ATF.

It is the Government’s intention that this Bill should make possible an attractive career for teachers and give the fullest possible protection to individual teachers. However, it must not be forgotten that the Government must have regard to the interests of not only the teachers but also the community in general and the children in the various school systems. The only other point I would like to mention is that the various appeal tribunals are I. think more weighted in favour of teachers than the normal appeal systems which apply throughout the Commonwealth Public Service as a whole. I believe the teachers accept that as the position.

Perhaps 1 should mention one part of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle. Although this matter is also to be covered by a later amendment it was raised in the amendment moved during the debate on the motion that the Bill be read a second time. The honourable member for Fremantle made the point in his speech that the leave for pregnancy was not adequate and that the provisions were unreasonable. Basically, I think the difference between the Opposition and the Government on this matter is that the Opposition wants expectant mothers to be paid for the up to 26 weeks period on leave while the Government is content with the normal provisions that apply at the moment. I am advised that the period of leave does conform with the appropriate International Labour Organisation convention, which provides for a total of up to 26 weeks leave including at least 6 weeks before the expected date of birth and at least 6 weeks after the expected date of birth. As I understand the situation the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Opposition wants the total period to be paid for as a normal matter of course. That is a point on which we may have to differ. I again thank honourable members for their patience and their indulgence.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 48

Majority .. .. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

Clauses 3 (Parts) and 4 (Definitions)

Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to:

That the clauses be postponed until after consideration of clause 6.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6

There shall be a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner, who shall be appointed by the Governor-General.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

Omit the clause, insert the following clause: “ (6.) There shall be a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commission the members of which shall be appointed by the Governor-General.”.

This amendment is intended to clear the path for a commission of 3 instead of a Teaching Service Commissioner. It is to enable the Opposition to propose specifically the points that it proposed generally during the second reading debate, namely, that there should be a representative of the teachers as one commissioner and another representative, the view of the Opposition which was fully explained being that there should be a commission of 3. So, instead of the single Commissioner, we are seeking the establishment of a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commission.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The issue here is whether one man or more than one man is to administer such a service as this. The point the Opposition is making to the Committee is that the creation of this Commissioner as a single authority is a departure from the general principles upon which the public services of Australia operate. As far as I know, there are very few authorities - I do not know of any, but perhaps there are some - where one man has been vested with the authority that this Commissioner will have. This Commissioner will decide on the actual placing of teachers, upon their wages and conditions and so on, subject to further qualifications later. He will have the right to promote personnel and the right to hire and fire. We believe that this is quite undemocratic. It is against the best interests of the teaching service. We on this side of the chamber believe that there should be representatives of the Service on the Commission.

My friend, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), during the course of the second reading debate pointed out that employees are not represented on the Commonwealth Public Service Board. However, in some other authorities throughout Australia they are represented, i am almost certain that they are represented on the Victorian Public Service Board. I know that they are represented on the various tribunals in the Victorian teaching service. This has been one of the policies which has gradually developed over the last 20 oi 30 years. We are now creating a new service and we should riot return to the authoritarian view of employment which is defined in this Bill. Therefore, I believe that the Committee should give serious consideration to this matter and vote for the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I desire to support the amendment because there is the possibility that, perhaps in the next 24 hours, a Bill will be brought before this House which will be the Government’s me’ hod of curing what it considers to be the industrial ills within the framework of the Public Service. I do not desire to talk about that measure at (his time. I oppose this clause. I can see nothing but disputation arising as a result of the establishment of a single Commissioner who may not be subjected to the type of industrial dispute tha*, is associated generally with industrial organisations. I think the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would be aware that the Bill provides for a complete departure from what we have known in the past in regard to teaching services, particularly in the North ern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, where the services have been under the wing of 2 different States. As a result of this Bill, there is no doubt that already there are moves afoot to form some type of industrial organisation, if I may use that term, by the teachers in the community who will be seeking employment within the provisions of the Bill. As I understand it, they already are no longer associated with their teaching organisations both in South Australia and New South Wales. That is one reason why I oppose this clause.

The Minister for Education and Science can laugh with his colleague at the table but he should be listening to what is being said on this side of the House. I think it could be said that the Opposition has far greater experience in the affairs of industrial conflict than has the Government and that the Opposition has a better understanding of such conflict. So, I feel that the Minister should give a great deal of thought to what is being said and accept the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. If he cannot accept the amendment, I should like the Minister to tell us where there has been any single jurisdiction in the industrial sphere which has noi caused wide disputation because it was a single authority. The Bill has not made any provision at all for proper and adequate democratic representation. We are not suggesting that there ought to be representation only when industrial conflict is taking place. If the Minister for Education and Science would listen to what I am saying, the amendment has for its purpose - this is most important - the avoidance of industrial disputes, because it would provide representation at the top level. The Commissioner who was responsible could hear the submissions of employee representatives. For that reason, I think that the Minister should give consideration to this amendment. I feel quite sure that he would not lose face if he were to stand in this chamber and say that he had had a further look at the situation and had examined single jurisdiction authorities in other spheres which have led to nothing but conflict, and that he would accept the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For reasons that I widely canvassed during the second reading debate, the Government does not accept this amendment and I can see no real purpose in repeating the arguments that have already been made.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8. (1.) The Commissioner shall be paid salary at such rate as the Parliament fixes but, until the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-three, the rate of that salary shall be such rate as is prescribed. (2.) The Commissioner shall be paid such allowances (other than annual allowances) as are prescribed.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

The reason for this amendment is quite simply that normally the salary of the commissioner would be fixed as the Parliament determines. We were not in a position to do this. It may well be dependent in part, amongst other things, upon the quality of the person offering. A requirement of the Parliament, particularly of the Senate, is that the Parliament ought to determine the salary of people of this stature. Because we were not able to do it we have provided in the Bill for a temporary situation which we have taken forward until January of next year. Because of events which will occur later this year we felt it might not be possible or time might be short if amending legislation were required before the end of this year. The only effect of this small amendment is to make the amending legislation necessary before July 1973 instead of January 1973.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Is it possible to say where this salary will fit into the system, because one of the issues in the Commonwealth Public Service concerns status and the general position in the whole system. I suppose my attitude is that anybody getting more than $10,000 a year ought not to be getting it at the present moment. In fact we ought to ensure that the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service is paid a salary commensurate with his duties, which I think would put him fairly high in the hierarchy.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I cannot give any firm undertaking. These matters are determined by the recommendation of the Higher Salaries

Committee, as the honourable member would know, to see where they fit in with the general run. But I think I would be able to guarantee that the salary will be considerably in excess of that which the honourable member receives.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Opposition is not particularly worried about this amendment because we believe that we will be in charge of the Bill in January next year and we will make these decisions ourselves.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 15 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 16. (3.) The Commissioner may, and, if so directed by the Minister, shall -

  1. make a person or persons available to an authority conducting a Commonwealth school or Commonwealth schools in a Territory other than the Northern Territory of Australia for the performance of teaching duties in that school or those schools; and

  2. make a person or persons available to the Government of a country other than Australia or to an authority of such a Government for the performance of teaching duties in a school or schools conducted in that country by that Government or authority. (5.) Before making a person or persons available in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section to an authority or authorities conducting a school or schools in a Territory, the Commissioner shall consult that authority or those authorities as to the persons required for the efficient operation of the school or schools.

    1. The Commissioner shall not direct an officer to perform duties in a place outside Australia and the Territories unless the officer consents to perform duties in that place. (9.) In this section, a reference to the authority conducting a school or schools shall -
  3. in relation to a school or schools conducted by the Commonwealth - be read as a reference to the Department of State responsible for the conduct of the school or schools; and
  4. in relation to a school or schools conducted by the Administration of a Territory or conducted in a Territory by a prescribed institution - be read as a reference to the Administration of that Territory.
Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of the Commonwealth Teaching Service so that those teachers trained under it may be available easily if necessary without reciprocity - which is provided for in a later part of the Bill - to the government of a State or to authorities under the authority of a State government. We believe that the Commonwealth should be generously planning the training of teachers to have a body of teachers highly trained and available for service anywhere in the Commonwealth for Commonwealth authorities or for State governments or for authorities established by State governments. We, of course, also subscribe to those clauses of the Bill which permit the services of these teachers beyond the limits of the Commonwealth in the islands of the Pacific and so on. But we believe that the Commonwealth should show that it is prepared to be generous to the State governments. It would be a very good thing if teachers not trained within the jurisdiction of State governments were available for service to State governments of their own choice. We believe that if this amendment is accepted it will provide an important way in which the Commonwealth can assist the States.

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

– The Government does not accept this amendment because in effect what the Opposition wants is already provided for in clause 16(4.). The Commonwealth cannot mandatorily make people availableto the State education departments unless the State departments want Commonwealth teachers to be employed in the State departments. It would only be where a State wanted to have a Commonwealth Teaching Service teacher that there would be this sort of manoeuvreability. I agree with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) that it would be a good thing.I am advised that the words in clause 16(4.) were put in the terms in which they appear for the reason that it is on a reciprocal basis but in effect it does not mean that we would make available only one teacher to a State if the State is making one teacher available to an authority under the Commonwealth. It would not be on a one-for-one basis. This is the draftsman’s way of expressing the intent. Again my advice is that the sub-clause provides basically what the Opposition wants.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– When we examined this clause we found it difficult to understand exactly what was meant butI will leave that to the draftsman.I am referring to clause 16 (4.). The position in regard to clause 16 (3.)(a) as I see it is this. In Australia there is an acute shortage of teachers at all levels. There is no general recruiting service throughout the country. I am the chairman of a high school advisory council in my electorate. A couple of years ago we advertised in the London ‘Times’ for teachers. We were setting our sights fairly high. After having received 16 or 17 applications from various parts of the world of whom about 14 or 15 seemed to us on paper to be qualified, we eventually acquired 2. Both of them happened to be Indians. After we had had serious fights with the Victorian Department of Education about the requirements of that Department in that teachers had to come to Australia for an interview - one of them was teaching in Ethiopia - the Victorian Teachers Union doubted the applicants’ qualifications; then we had our final tussle with that remarkable revolutionary, the then Minister for Immigration. The misfortune of these people was that they happened to have skins of a different colour to ours, but eventually they arrived in Australia.

It seems to me that for the Commonwealth to embark upon such a programme of actually recruiting and getting people to Australia and putting them into a Commonwealth service to make them available as required throughout Australia would supply a service that nobody else could supply. I am quite certain that there are tons of authorities around Australia who would be anxious to make use of these persons. One of the things that is happening in Victoria, and perhaps in other States too, is that local schools are taking the initiative in advertising for staff and therefore we do not really need to wait for the initiative of the education departments.

I personally believe that we would be advantaged if there were a national teaching service available throughout Australia and that on whatever terms necessary all teachers in Australia receive satisfactory salaries and so on. I am not advocating a great monolith. We have been arguing against this all night. I believe that there is a requirement for a national teaching attitude andI think that it could be met partly by a national teaching service. I am certain from my own experience that the Commonwealth could supply a service and a facility which nobody else could supply if the Commonwealth were prepared to make the effort.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I am sorry that the Opposition must persist with this amendment. I invite the attention of the House to the plain meaning of the words which the Minister says makes our amendment unnecessary. Sub-clause (4.) of clause 16 states:

Where a State or an authority of a State has made, or proposes to make, a person or persons available to an authority or authorities conducting a Commonwealth school or Commonwealth schools for the performance of teaching duties in that school or those schools, the Commissioner may, and, if so directed by the Minister, shall, make a person or persons available to that State or to that authority of that State for the performance of teaching duties in a school or schools conducted by that State or by that authority of that State.

It is clearly conditional upon the State having originally given to the Commonwealth or proposing to give to the Commonwealth the services of a teacher. I do not mind that. It is fair enough that there should be exchanges but in addition we want the Commonwealth to create a teaching service the teachers of which will be free to go to serve in a State whether or not that State has given teachers to teach in a Commonwealth school. I suggest that that is a difference. I respect the Minister’s advice but on the other hand the Parliamentary Draftsman has written in exceptionally plain English for a parliamentary draftsman that what is intended is an exchange. We do not seek in our amendment that the State should reciprocate beforehand by offering services or giving the services of a State officer to the Commonwealth. We are not going to say this is a vast difference but it is an important principle in our idea of wanting a free teaching service. Therefore we will persist with our amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Beazley’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 54

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-I move:

Omit sub-clause (6.), insert the following subclause. “ (6.) The Commissioner shall not direct an officer to perform duties in a school conducted by an authority unless the officer consents to perform duties for that authority.”.

Clause 16(6.) as set out by the Minister states:

The Commissioner shall not direct an officer to perform duties in a place outside Australia and the Territories unless the officer consents to perform duties in that place.

We have no objection to that sub-clause, but it does not go far enough. Consonant with our idea of its being a free teaching service, we do not believe that the Commissioner should have the power to compel a teacher to teach under any authority and not merely, as the Government provides, that the Commissioner should not have power to compel a teacher to teach outside Australia or Australia’s Territories. The Government admits that the Commissioner cannot make a teacher teach in Samoa, for instance, but we believe that the Commissioner should not be empowered to compel a teacher against his will to teach anywhere. It is a trained teaching service, and in our view the teachers themselves should nominate the authority under which they wish to teach. If they wish to teach in the Australian Capital Territory then they should teach in the Australian Capital Territory; if they wish to teach in the Northern Territory they should teach in the Northern Territory, and so on. They cannot of course force themselves on the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory or any other authority they nominate but they can refuse to go and teach under an authority to which it may be suggested that they go. The Government gives the Commissioner the power to compel a teacher to teach under any authority unless that authority is outside the Commonwealth and its territories. We want to free this teaching service, make it more flexible and less rigid. We will have a trained body of teachers, and they should have the right to choose under what authorities they are prepared to teach.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– Earlier the Minister himself virtually admitted the value of this amendment. He. suggested at the time that any worthwhile commissioner with good sense would make sure that teachers were placed in locations in which they sought to provide their services. He said the essence of this was to provide a contented teaching service. He accepts that it is very desirable to have a contented teaching service. I am sure that he could have no objection to this amendment, which asks that a teacher, before being posted to a particular education authority, should have the opportunity of consenting or otherwise to such an appointment. I think that the Minister has given all the reasons why this amendment should be carried. Members of this Commonwealth Teaching Service will serve under quite a diversity of conditions not only environmentally but in terms of family provisions that are available in different areas and a number of other factors as well. He would want to have some choice in where he is sent.

In addition 1 make the point that the Minister in relying on what he has called Mie good sense of the Commissioner to place people in desirable locations ignores the experience of many State teaching services. Many teachers have left the various State teaching services simply because they did not have an opportunity to be placed in the location that they felt desirable. A discontented teacher is certainly no asset to any educational service and this amendment, if it is accepted, will do much to ensure, in this sphere of influence, the contentedness of the teaching service. As I have pointed out, we are, after all, catering for quite a diversity of locations. We can think of the Australian Capital Territory, the teaching of Aborigines in the Northern Territory and serving in Papua New Guinea. Once a teacher has joined the Service he is liable, as the Bill stands, to be sent to any one of these locations. In view of experiences that I know of I seriously suggest to the Minister that it would be worth while to accept this amendment. To do otherwise could seriously prejudice recruitment to the Commonwealth Teaching Service. I know that there are other aspects. The Service will attract people because of the diversity of experiences that are available and because of the areas to which they can go to serve; but I am certain that many will be deterred by the thought that they could be sent to loca tions which would be quite distasteful to them. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– Much of what the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) has said is true in the worst practico examples of directing people within a teaching service and theoretically what is proposed in the amendment is obviously highly desirable, namely, that people should be able to go precisely where they want to go and when they want without recourse to the position of other people, while integrating into a total system. But, in practice, despite the desirability of this sort of thing, we might find some considerable problems. Honourable members opposite, in a number of points that they have made, seem to ignore the fact that this must be a system. Earlier in the debate they referred to the generality whereby medicos are not pushed around anywhere - they can go where they will, they are free agents, they are self employed and they either make money in a place or they do not. People employed by an authority, whether it is authoritarian or non-authoritarian, do not have the same advantage. I am fully aware of what the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) said about the New South Wales teaching service. Some of the worst bureaucratic operations of the past have resulted in A being sent to approximately the home location of B and B being sent to approximately the home location of A and no-one bothering to find out whether it would be possible for them both to teach in their home locations and so avoid the necessity to travel back and forth. In this Bill we are concerned with areas further distant, of course. However this sort of thing does happen although it should not happen if there are competent operators. Of course, the bigger the system the harder it is to organise. It is difficult, with the best will in the world, to see in practice how there could be a situation under which people could not be directed at all to go somewhere if necessary.

We well know that in every State there is a considerable propensity among teachers to want to undertake part-time university courses. This is highly commendable, but in so doing they want to be in the capital cities or at least next door to the universities, which at present is much the same thing. So there is a general dearth of people who want to be sent to anything like a rural area. Without some sort of control we would end up with practically no teachers in the country and all teachers in the cities. I do not know how this situation could be met in view of the Opposition’s subtle distinction between ‘place’ and authority’. Basically the Opposition’s amendment concerns a distinction between sending a teacher to a place and sending a teacher to work under an authority. Frankly, in practice, unless I have missed the point, I think we would end up with a situation that any other system finds. I should like to think otherwise but I cannot see how that could be. Someone has to lay down some sort of authority and we only hope it will operate in as enlightened a fashion as is possible.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I do not think the system will be as difficult to operate as the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) and the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) anticipate. I am not quite au fait with the latest developments in Victoria. 1 understand that people who have recently joined the teaching service are likely to be posted anywhere. My friend, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), has informed me of the case of a husband being posted a couple of hundred miles from his wife. She may well have organised it; I do not know. However, as I understand the system as it used to operate, once a person received a permanent appointment that was it until there was some change of status of the school at which he was working. Normally a teacher stayed in the school to which he was appointed unless he was transferred for promotional reasons or sought a move.

As the system will operate, and I presume it operates similarly in other areas, vacancies will be advertised. Anyone joining the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be able to apply for vacancy and if there are vacancies only at Tennant Creek South East, Narrabundah West, Yirrkala, Nhulunbuy or Gove, or elsewhere that is where persons will fit into the system. There are no real difficulties. Most of the time there will be some floating group inside the service but for the generality of teachers permanency of living place will be one of the fundamental factors in recruitment. I believe that unless we make this clear somewhere along the line we will damage the opportunity of people joining the service.

What will be the situation in Canberra? It is quite possible that after the system has been operating for 2 or 3 years - tha honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) of course has pointed out that its operations will be in the hands of people more sensitive to these matters before very long - and a few teachers from Canberra have been sent reluctantly to Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory there will be a retreat from Canberra back into the New South Wales teaching service. I personally would regard this as an important matter if I were in the teaching service somewhere and had my home there. There is a big difference in the attitude of the average family man of the 1960s and 1970s compared with that of 30 or 40 years ago. People are most reluctant to move their homes, even for promotion in most instances. Stability of living place is extremely important and the possibility of caprice or arbitrary decision shunting teachers around Australia will not assist recruitment. On the technical side I do not think the difficulties are as enormous as honourable members opposite seem to envisage.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government does not accept this amendment. It believes that this reserve power will be essential, not necessarily between educational areas - the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory - but perhaps within an area. This kind of reserve power applies, as I understand it, to all members of the Commonwealth Public Service. I point out to the Committee that the Commonwealth in the Commonwealth Teaching Service is taking a more advanced view of some of the matters relating to the appointment of teachers and their postings than do the States because we have specifically made our moves for establishing our own teaching service and, of course, developing our own education systems without the bonding of teachers which is characteristic of all of the States. I would have thought that this would have been regarded as an advance and, in a sense, symptomatic of the spirit in which I would expect the commissioner of a teaching service to administer this legislation.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 19 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20. (2.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, a person shall not be appointed as an officer unless -

  1. he is a British subject;
  2. he possesses such educational qualifications, and such other qualifications (if any), as are determined by the Commissioner;
  3. the Commissioner is satisfied as tohis health and physical fitness; (3.) The Commissioner may,, with the approval of the Minister, appoint as an officer a person who is not a British subject, or is a British subject but is not a citizen of a country forming part of the Queen’s dominions, and has not made and subscribed the oath or affirmation referred to in paragraph (e) of the last preceding sub-section but is otherwise eligible for appointment as an officer.
Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

In sub-clause (2.). omit paragraph (a).

This is a rather extraordinary paragraph because the Government ties itself up and then shows us by a virtuoso performance of an Houdini act how you get out of it in another part of the same clause. Clause 20 (2.) states:

Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, a person shall not be appointed as an officer unless -

he is a British subject;

The Commissioner can appoint only a British subject -I am not quite sure whether that terminology is not outmoded; I suppose an Australian citizen is a British subject. But having tied the Commissioner up by providing that he cannot appoint a teacher unless the teacher is a British subject in sub-clause 3, the Bill states:

The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Minister, appoint as an officer a person who is not a British subject . . .

Then there follows all sorts of complicated wording. Having forbidden the Commissioner to appoint somebody who is not a British subject the Bill then provides that he can appoint a non-British subject if he has the permission of the Minister. The Opposition does not believe that the first qualification is necessary.

WhenI was aged 12 years I used to read ‘Magnet’ and ‘Gem’ in which there were always French and German masters who, being foreigners, were ipso facto quaint and funny. If ‘Magnet’ and ‘Gem* were liberal enough to contemplate teaching staff who were non-British subjects even in quite conservative schools like Greyfriars and St Jim’s, it is quite possible that the Commonwealth should allow the Commissioner to appoint to the Commonwealth Teaching Service people who are not British subjects without having to get the special approval of the Minister. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of language teaching it would be extremely wise to have non-British subjects as teachers. We are beginning to get many appointments of Japanese, Chinese and other nonBritish subjects to teach their languages. It is quite important that this service should be extended and that the Commissioner is unnecessarily tied up. We need not have all these qualifications involving the Minister. I do not presume that if this qualification were deleted the Commissioner would start appointing right and left the yellow peril, which is the term sometimes used in discussions on immigration policies; but he should, if he is an intelligent man, be able to select good non-British subjects as teachers. The Opposition does not feel there is a need to provide in this clause that the Commissioner has to get the special permission of the Minister before appointing non-British subjects, and I move accordingly.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– This is a piece of archaic nonsense. There are literally dozens and dozens of people coming to Australia who do not have the great good fortune to be British subjects. The electorates comprising the inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne contain in the schools thousands of customers who are not British subjects and it is quite idiotic to have this proviso in the Bill. I am minded to raise the matter here tonight because while in Alice Springs I met a teacher who was an American subject. I do not know what provision there is in South Australia on this matter, but it is probably much the same. Honourable members might say that this is a small point which the Opposition has raised because the Commissioner has only to apply to the Minister and he will always say yes; he is always reasonable when dealing with these matters no matter how unreasonable he always is here. The fact is that it gives a great deal of security to persons affected by this clause if there are no provisos which can possibly exclude them. In the increasingly cosmopolitan nature of the community this proviso is another one of those things which make people from Europe and America feel a little less at home. Surely we can delete this proviso tonight and show that we have grown up a bit. I am not anti-British or anything like that but if we invite people from all over the world to live in Australia let them work on equal terms with every other person who lives in Australia.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I support the amendment. It was said a little while ago that we are prepared to trust the commissioner in the matter of locating teachers. It was said that he could exercise good sense. What has suddenly happened to his good sense when we get this provision. His good sense has run down the gutter. We have to take comparatively trivial matters such as this to the Minister for his decision on each occasion. A good case can be made out for the interchange of teachers between different countries. It is important not only in terms of goodwill between countries but it is also a good thing for the cross fertilisation of ideas in education and inter-cultural relationships.

Reference has been made to the Colombo Plan and other aid. I cannot think of a more sensible thing to do in this field than implement the interchange of teachers, sending our teachers abroad and inviting teachers overseas to come here. It is happening already, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) indicated. In New South Wales schools at present quite a number of American teachers are working. Some teachers have come from Asian countries and also probably from European countries. It would be a good thing for education to have a great deal more interchange of teachers and their ideas of running educational systems. Let the Government admit that the Opposition has made at least jone sensible suggestion tonight. I do not think that this one can be denied.

Mr BARNES:
Mcpherson

– I support the Minister in this matter and I wish to speak against the proposed amendment. I think it is about time that we valued our British cultural systems. If we are to grab people from all over the world we will be in trouble. I think it is important that we do not attempt to change cultures. If we do 0. we could well get into a bit of a mess. Reference has been made to teachers coming from the United States of America. Would honourable members opposite like to see the American system of life here? I would not, and I think a lot of Australians would not. They can have their own way of life in the United States and I do not believe that we want in Australia teachers with the sorts of standards adopted in the United States. We do not want them here. I think we should stick to what the Minister has provided in the Bill.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– We have just heard from an expert on breeding who imports French stallions into this country. I want to illustrate how ridiculous is this provision in the Bill. A week ago I had representations made to me by a gentleman aged 25 years who arrived in this country at the age of 5 years. When he was 10 years old his parents were naturalised. At the age of 1 8 years he joined the Public Service and assumed that he had Australian citizenship. He worked first for the New South Wales Public Service and later for the Commonwealth Public Service, or vice versa. He attended law school. His name has been on the electoral roll and he has voted at two or three elections. He is ready to be called to the Bar, as the saying is, having gained his law degree with the intention of becoming a lawyer for the Commonwealth Government.

Suddenly the New South Wales Supreme Court has insisted on his presenting a certificate of naturalisation or other certificate to show that he is a British subject. He looked at his father’s certificate of naturalisation and it has turned out that he, the son, was not included on it. For all this time he has thought that he was a British citizen. No doubt, under this legislation, he could have worked for the Commonwealth Public Service as a teacher. He has now found out that he is not a British citizen. 1 checked with the Department of Immigration and found that his name was included on the application for naturalisation, but due to a clerical error he was not naturalised and is not a British subject.

What a silly distinction to make between that person and a person whose name was included on a naturalisation form. His livelihood could depend on that particular distinction. lt seems quite ridiculous to me, having in mind that a large proportion of Australia’s population, notwithstanding the views of the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Barnes), were not born in this country or in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they feel that they are just as entitled to work, teach, practice law or whatever is appropriate in this country. I strongly support the amendment.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– This is a legal matter, not really a matter of emotion. It has nothing to do with culture, heritage or anything of that type. It is a matter of legality. The honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Barnes) is trying to interject. 1 ask him to contain himself for a moment and I will put a question to him. He may then enter the debate a second time, which is his right at the Committee stage. This provision has been taken from old imperial Acts drafted at a time when there was a common citizenship throughout the British Empire. In 1972, if we adopt the provision in this legislation, a very interesting situation could arise. 1 suggest that the Minister take an interest and apply himself to what f am about to say.

Pakistan has withdrawn from the Commonwealth of Nations, as it now is legally. Honourable members can check on that with London. Members of countries in the Commonwealth of Nations generally hold British citizenship. Pakistan has withdrawn, but all the Pakistani citizens by a law established in London, not Canberra, are still British citizens because before their status can be changed the Citizenship Act of Britain must be changed. There is therefore an interesting situation. I understood from the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) only a week ago, and from his 2 predecessors, that the primary citizenship is Australian, but we are now asked as a Parliament to enshrine in law something which is quite ludicrous in the light of reality.

A man can be recruited from Pakistan as a British subject, just so long as he is described as a British subject, not by our legislation but by another nation’s legislation. The honourable member for McPherson is amused. I agree with him that it is rather funny. It is very amusing that we are asked to enshrine such an outofdate provision in 1972 legislation, lt is asking rather much of the national Parliament of a country which is gradually moving towards some semblance of independence in law making. I suggest that the Minister, who prides himself on his erudition, apply himself ‘ to that legal tangle so that when we recruit British subjects from Pakistan we ask whether they are British subjects by virtue of the law of the Commonwealth of Australia or by virtue of the law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just how they measure up in the present situation.

Obviously it is an empty provision because events have left it behind, ft is entirely a legal matter. If it is not recognised as such, I suggest there should be consultation with members of the former imperial government, I am sure that they will be delighted to explain to the honourable member for Mcpherson, who seems a little confused, that the British Empire has passed away.

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

– 1 quite understand the attitude of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). This might apply if the Labor Party got into power and got Pakistanis and people from all over the world to come here, but while this Government is in power I do not think it is necessary to worry about it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) has raised an important matter. This clause provides that the Minister must give permission for a person who is not an Australian citizen to become a member of the service. A former Minister for Territories rather facetiously referred a few moments ago to mass Asian migration, but it is a fact that in most of the major independent school systems in Australia there is a very substantial teaching force of Indian and Pakistani people who have entered this country under the present Government. They may wish to transfer to the Commonwealth Teaching Service. Therefore, they would come within the provisions of this Bill. It is all right for these people to get down in the gutter and crawl in the muck in their politics, but the facts of the matter are that most of the senior independent schools in Australia at present have coloured teachers and nonBritish teachers on their teaching staffs. The question which we are posing is whether these people, who are teaching in very senior and well thought of schools according to the Minister, should be allowed to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service if the Commissioner considers that their qualifications are sufficient and without the Minister having the right of a political veto. That is exactly what we are writing into the Bill - a political veto.

The situation is not good in many respects. People who come to Australia and who propose to become permanent residents of this country cannot get naturalised until they have been here for 3 years. Under the provisions presently in the Bill, these people will not be able to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service unless the Minister approves. I do not know of any person who would be capable of going through the physical requirements of examining carefully every application and giving approval. The Minister will act on the recommendations of the Commissioner or his Department, and I do not see why he should not give the responsibility for approving the application to the person who will make the recommendation.

The other point about this matter is that because these teachers are not British subjects they will be denied a number of rights which cannot be backdated to the time of their joining the service. Under the Victorian system non-British subjects cannot join the State Superannuation Fund. So even though they may work for 30 years after they have become naturalised, they lose their rights for the first 3 years of their service. This may or may not be a good provision. But the facts of the matter are that approximately one in seven people living in Australia today are not Australian citizens. They were born in countries outside Australia. We ought to recognise this fact. We are paying a lot of money to bring these people to Australia. When the Minister stands up and talks about coloured migration and that sort of thing he is talking utter rubbish. This Government has trebled the number of coloured migrants coming into this country in the last 5 years. Let the Minister at least talk honestly.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– I cannot quite see why such a lot of heat is being generated over a pretty simple thing, but I should not like the general public reading Hansard in the future to think that the only thoughts on this matter came from the Opposition. Goodness knows, I am no expert on teaching and I have risen without having examined the whole question. But I have heard quite a bit of the debate. The State teaching services are inviting people overseas to come to Australia. Quite a few Americans down in my part of the world are doing a very valuable service. Are these people to be barred from joining the Commonwealth Teaching Service? Anybody in this chamber who is sitting and thinking about where Australia is going must realise that we are the most important country in the South East Asian area and in the southern Pacific area. Arc we going to bar Japanese from coming to Australia? We should be teaching Japanese, Malaysian and a few other languages in our schools at the present time bo that we can talk to these people who are our friends. How will we get Japanese to become British subjects in order to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service? Admittedly the Minister will have the right to say that they can join the Service.

All I want to do in rising to speak - a bit unwillingly - is to point out that surely this is a sound, commonsense arrangement. It allows people to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. If we are going to appoint a commissioner to conduct the whole affair, surely we should not be bringing the political angle into it by providing that the Commissioner has to get the permission of the Minister if he wants somebody to come to Australia to teach something which could be most valuable to the Australian public in the future.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Where has that Minister gone again? He is over with the departmental officials. He is there all the time. He is checking up. Is he ready? Now that the Minister has crept back to the table, I should like from him a definition of a British subject. How stupid can we get in 1972? The Government knocks back a

German professor who could be of some value to Australia because he is not a British subject. It is as dead as a dodo, and honourable members opposite know it.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– It is not dead.

Mr FOSTER:

– It is as dead as a dodo. Let the honourable member for Mallee rise in this place and tell us his view. I was interested to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Barnes). He does not seem to like Americans now that he has been pushed back onto the back bench, yet for years he has been following his leader blindly on Americanism to the detriment of Australia generally. And other honourable members opposite follow in his footsteps.

Mr Robinson:

– Whom do you follow?

Mr FOSTER:

– I should like to think that I was an Australian, and it is about time that some of the people on the Government side thought about Australia, spoke about Australia and started to put Australia on the map. That is my view, and what is wrong with that? Run by the League of Rights, as you are, you look at the flag in that light and no other. To come back to the measure, let the Minister rise in this chamber tonight and justify the clause by informing the Committee why it is there. What is his interpretation of a British subject? We have people in this country taking out Australian citizenship to become British subjects. For how much longer are we going to carry on in this stupid fashion? I support the amendment and agree entirely with the remarks made by honourable members on this side of the chamber and with some expressions of opinion that have been made by some honourable members on the Government side who have hastened to the Minister to tell him that he is a damn fool to have this type of provision in a Bill for which he is responsible in this chamber.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
Mallee

– There has been more loud talk than logic from the Opposition. That is the first remark I want to make. Someone has said that the Commissioner should have the power to do the things that have been suggested. As far as I have been able to ascertain, I think that the Commissioner will have the power inside Australia to do all sorts of things regarding the education system and the people who will teach in it. What has to be remembered is that what we are talking about is an international matter and there must be a safeguard. I know that it is all right laughing about these things. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is making a joke of this matter. If he does not care whether this country is safeguarded or not that is all right, but I am not going to sit here and listen to this debate without getting up to support my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Barnes) who was on the right track. The safeguard provided is that the Commissioner has to refer an application by a non-British subject to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service to the Minister and the Minister can then say whether it is all right. Therefore, someone actively in the Government - the Minister or someone in the same position as the Minister - has to have this authority.

It is all right to say that this is as dead as a dodo, as did my neighbour the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) who is calling out all the time. This is more serious than anything else in the whole Bill. It has been described as being the most trivial thing in the Bill. I think that it is the most important thing. Fancy saying that the Commissioner should be able to decide this matter, as one Opposition member did. This is a matter to be decided by a man who is responsible to the people of Australia - a Minister in the Government of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I say that this proVision in the Bill is a safeguard which this country urgently requires.

Mr Foster:

– Against what?

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– It is a safeguard against bringing into this country people who the Minister or the Government believes are not satisfactory people to come here to teach our children.

Mr Jacobi:

– No, it does not.

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– It does. Therefore, I support what has been said by my colleague. I believe that this clause is in the best interest of the Commonwealth.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I notice that the honourable and noble member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) has identified himself with his colleague from McPherson (Mr Barnes). I would like to pick up a point made by the honourable member for McPherson, because I think that we should come back to the realm of fact. With considerable heat the honourable member for McPherson said that the Australian Labor Party would be flooding the country with Indians and Pakistanis. The honourable member and his colleagues had better take a look at the Government’s record in this regard. It is bringing out 4,000 Indians a year. I do not know how many Pakistanis it is bringing out, but that is how many Indians the Government is bringing out at present. If that is undersirable the honourable member for McPherson should not try to pin it on the Labor Party; he should say it about the Government he supports.

Mr Barnes:

– I was talking about the remarks of the former Leader of the Opposition.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I have not criticised the Government for bringing out 4.000 Indians, but the honourable member for McPherson has said that that is something which the Labor Party would do if it were in office; yet the Government he supports is already doing it. Apparently that is all right. If the honourable member regards that as reprehensible he should say so to the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes).

The second thing 1 want to draw to the attention of the House is the remarks of the honourable member for McPherson about Americans. 1 am not an admirer of the violence or of the other unpleasant features that are plaguing the United States of America, but I thing it is very bad to say that the American teachers who come here would advocate those things to Australian children. That is grossly unjust. If the honourable member for Mcpherson wants to keep those features of American life out of Australia be had better have a look at the American television programmes that are seen here by thousands and thousands of children. He should not blame the sorts of things that are happening in America on the people who have taken on the vocation of teaching and who I am perfectly certain would not teach values ot drugs, violence or anything else like that in Australian life.

Another matter which needs to be considered is the lack of precision of the expression ‘British subject’. A British subject - in the classical definition anyhow - is a person who owes allegiance to the monarch because he was born in the monarch’s dominions. You cannot turn that into a race instrument. A Papuan is a British subject; a New Guinean is not. A Papuan is both a British subject and an Australian citizen. There are many other coloured people who are British subjects. So if you wanted to use a race instrument against teachers you would never use an expression like ‘British subject’ because it is not an expression of race; it is an expression of the location of birth. Under the classic and medieval definition of subjecthood a person owes allegiance to the monarch because he is born in the monarch’s dominions. It has nothing to do with colour, religion, culture or anything else. In point of fact in days of the Empire every person born in India was a British subject and a subject of the Emperor.

Mr Grassby:

– And -still is.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– And those born there before 1947 can still elect to be so, I understand, although I may not be correct in that. The Opposition feels that to say, as the honourable member for Mallee has said, that the only way to ensure that we do not get undesirable teachers is to use the terminology ‘British subject’ is to use a very imprecise instrument because, after all, the man who sold all of Britain’s submarine secrets was a British subject. Surely honourable members opposite are not going to say that the mere terminology ‘British subject’ is a safeguard. There are a few other qualities of character as well. But if the Government is going to persevere with this proviso it will mean that only if a person is not a British subject is it a matter on which the Minister is better qualified than the Commissioner. The Commissioner is better qualified than the Minister if the person is a British subject, but in some mystic way the Commissioner must be left free if the person is not a British subject because, according to the honourable member for Mallee, the Commissioner is likely to appoint undesirables. If the

Commissioner is likely to appoint undesirables he should not be the Commissioner in the first place.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I think the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has made plain to the Committee the definition of a British subject as it appears in the Bill. However, I would like to repeat it. Briefly, a British subject is a person who is a citizen of Australia or of a country specified in the Citizenship Act and the countries specified are countries in the Commonwealth of Nations. There are certain exceptions to that, but that is a pretty wide definition. This provision is very much the same as the provision in the Public Service Act except that in the Public Service generally there is no exemption - one has to be a British subject. So, to the extent that we have moved away from that - applying the possibilities of exemption to the rule of British subject - we have met the inclinations of the Opposition. We have moved away from the more traditional and narrower approach under the Public Service Act. I hope that the Opposition will give the Government credit for doing that much.

I can understand the Opposition’s approach that it would have liked the Government to move further, but in its wisdom or lack of wisdom the Government chose to take the present approach in this Bill. It is an approach that applies to other Commonwealth Acts. It applies to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I quite deliberately checked with that organisation and learned that it has never been an inconvenience to it. With the wide areas of research activities covered by that Organisation it is not infrequent that it wishes to employ trained and specialist people from overseas. I recognise that many teachers are coming to Australia from other countries, including countries which are not in the Commonwealth of Nations. I expect that process to continue and I do not expect them to have any difficulty finding employment in the Commonwealth Teaching Service.

Mr Bryant (Wills) (11.46)- Mr Chairman

Motion (by Mr Chipp) put: That the question be now put:

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 47

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (Recruitment of officers).

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I wish to say a few words on Clause 21. I take the opportunity to express my dissatisfaction at how this Government is letting us debate clause 21. At 10.20 this evening the Government brought before the chamber a Bill containing 53 clauses, of which clause 21 is one. and demanded that it be passed through the Parliament tonight. As far asI am concerned, from here on tonight I will protest against every clause, including this one, because the Government has no right to ram the meassure down our necks. The arrangement in this House is that at 11.0 o’clock twice a week the question ‘that the House do now adjourn’ and the adjournment debate follows. The Government has repudiated this agreement. If this continues tonight I will speak every Tuesday night and make the Government gag me.. TonightI will speak on every clause from here on and make the Government gag me. This Government has no legislation before the Parliament. It is sham fighting.

There are 53 clauses contained in this most contentious measure. The Opposition has moved a number of important amendments to several clauses. We are expected to sit here in the middle of the night with an incompetent Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and an incompetent Government trying to ram the Bill down our necks without proper discussion. It is monstrous and objectionable and for my part I will not take it.

Mr Scholes:

– We debated the matter of state aid for 4 days.

Mr DALY:

– Yes. We debated state aid for 4 days. The Government has brought forward this Bill only to try to gain political capital out of certain issues. Why should we sit here? Why should arrangements be repudiated? I will read clause 21 to honourable members. It is something that honourable members ought to hear. Clause 21 (1.) states:

The Commissioner may, from time to time, by advertisement in the daily newspaper or elsewhere, invite personsto apply for appointment as officers.

A very imporant matter, and something that should not be, discussed at this hour of the night. It is a question on which every honourable member can express an opinion well worth hearing during the day or at any other time. Clause 21 (2.) reads:

The Commissioner shall specify in any such advertisement -

I ask honourable members to listen to this closely -

  1. the classes of positions in respect of which applications for appointment are invited;

Is not that of great significance? It ought to be discussed. Why should we be expected to hurry through the Bill involving this issue in the dead of the night? Let us not forget the second part of sub-clause 2. It states:

  1. the salaries, or limits of salaries, that will be applicable upon appointment;

What are they? What salaries has the Minister in mind? What has the Minister in mind in respect of salaries, appointments and the things that go with them? These are matters that the Minister does not want to explain. That is why at midnight he is trying to ram the Bill down the necks of members of the Parliament. The fact of the matter is that the Minister probably has not read the Bill in detail. Let us have a look at paragraph (c). It reads:

  1. where applicable -
  2. the age limits for appointment;

What are the age limits for appointment? I am an inquisitive fellow. I would like to know. So would other honourable members on this side of the chamber. Does the Minister think he can sit there as stolid as an ox and get away with this at this hour of the night when public money is being spent? Men are being appointed to positions and we want to know the real facts of the matter. If I keep up this questioning he will surely go to the corner and get his information or his riding orders again. He has been doing that all night. Clause 21 (2.) (c) (ii) states: the qualifications required to be possessed before appointment and the period, if any, within which the qualifications or any of them must have been obtained;

That is a complicated question. I will read it again. It states: the qualifications required to be possessed before appointment and the period, if any, within which the qualifications or any of them must have been obtained;

What are the qualifications, Mr Minister? Tell honourable members on this side of the chamber precisely what is meant by that clause. I would like to hear it explained to me in detail. If I have to spend the rest of the night here, why not at least have somebody to talk to you between speeches on these important matters? Let us have a look at the third part of the clause which reads:

The date on which persons who obtained or obtain the required qualifications during a period specified for the purposes of the last preceding sub-paragraph will cease to be qualified for appointment by virtue of those qualifications.

Broadly, what the hell does that mean, I ask honourable members. The Minister himself does not know. He thinks that we on this side of the Parliament are suckers and are going to put up with it. We are awake to the fact that nobody on that side has read this legislation in detail. This is an extensive clause. It goes on:

  1. the manner of ascertaining the order in which offers of appointment will be made.

That is an important provision. What is it? Evidently not one honourable member opposite knows. Then we come to (e), which reads: the date by which applications for appointment are required tobe received.

What is the date by which they are required to be received? Surely we are entitled to know the facts in relation to a complicated clause like this. We want information on these matters. Paragraph (f) is a vital one, too. It reads: such other matters, if any, as the Commissioner considers desirable.

What a broad blanket clause that is. We are expected to sit up and take it and let it go through.

I would like to know whether the Minister really knows what is in clause 21. He has not said anything. He read out a document in the second reading speech but he said practically nothing in the Committee stage. I am sorry to detain honourable members but there are several parts of this clause. I come now to sub-clause (3.) which reads:

Offers of appointment to qualified persons who have applied for appointment in pursuance of an advertisement under this section shall be made in the order ascertained in accordance with the terms of the advertisement.

That is very complicated. It must have taken a long time to put it together. How do you pursue an advertisement, I am asked by my distinguished colleague from Fremantle. That will tax the Minister at the table. It is something that those who will be appointed under this Act will desire to know. Does it not show the sinister implications of the clause? Does it not indicate why the Minister is hiding it away from the light of day? Does it not indicate that there are hidden meanings in these clauses which the Government does not want the people of Australia to know?

Sub-clause 4 provides:

Nothing in this section prevents the appointment as an officer of a qualified person who has applied for appointment otherwise than in pursuance of an advertisement under this section-

He has been pursuing it from the date it went in, I suppose. This is the clause that the Minister asks us to put through. I now come to clause 22. I do not like to upset the Parliament but I shall have to do this all night - we do not want to do it - for the simple reason that if we have time tomorrow maybe we will find out what pursuing an advertisement and all those other things mean. I make this kind of speech -I know that my colleagues support me - to register our protest at the interference with the rights of the next Government of this country in not letting it legislate properly in accordance with the accepted practice of all democratic parliaments.

What a silent majority the Government has over there in the Australian Country Party. Why, there is not a cocky in the country at work at midnight but here they are being kept up. I charge the Minister, first, with not knowing what is in the Bill and, secondly, with wanting to hide his incompetence on this issue by putting it through at this time of the night. I make those few brief comments on clause 21 and remind the Minister that I feel reasonably energetic tonight. So long as he keeps this legislation going,I do not know who else is interested but there is one member here whom he is going to have to gag.

Thursday, 23rd March 1972

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

-I move:

I do this as a protest against the House sitting after midnight. I shall do it every night on which we sit past midnight.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! That motion is out of order.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I move:

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 47

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22. (3.) The Commissioner may, at any time during the period of six months, terminate the appointment. (4.) As soon as practicable after the expiration of the period of six months, the Commissioner shall-

  1. confirm the appointment;
  2. terminate the appointment; or
  3. direct that the probationer continue on probation for such further period (not being a period exceeding six months) as the Commissioner thinks fit. (5.) Where the Commissioner directs that a probationer continue on probation for a further period, he may confirm or terminate the appointment of the probationer at any time during that further period and, if he has not confirmed or terminated the appointment before the expiration of that period, shall do so as soon as practicable after the expiration of that period.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– After some examination of the amendments moved by the Opposition I am prepared to move for the addition of new sub-clause 6 to clause 22.I move:

I have discussed this with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley).

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– It had been the intention of the Opposition to move that the termination of appointments the person concerned should be notified in writing as to the reasons for thetermination. I understand from what the Minister has said that the Government acceptsthis principle and that the new sub-clause (6.) at the end of the clause will cover the 3 situations which we had in mind.In view of the Minister’s assurance we will not persist with our amendment and we accept the Government’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1056

ADJOURNMENT

Alleged Bugging of Hotel Room - Unemployment Benefit

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– Late this afternoon my attention was drawn to a book entitled ‘From Bob to Bungles and now to Billy’ which was published first in 1970 and was written by Mr Ray Aitchison. At the time of the incident to which I will refer, Mr Aitchison was a reporter in the Parliamentary Gallery representing the Australian Broadcasting Commission. My attention has been drawn to page 212 of (his book. The book states:

When Tun Razak hadleft Australia he had been angry about another incident. His own security agents had found a listening device hidden in the air-conditioning unit in his hotel room in Canberra. The air-conditioning unit had not been functioning properly, and his security agents bad become suspicious and had looked into it, and had found the electronic ‘ear’.

One of the Malaysians said to me at the time, In some ways we are more sophisticated than you. We know all about bugging a room.’

Rightly or wrongly they blamed Australian Military Intelligence for having done it.

This account differs from the account that I received in that according to this account the hotel maintenance staff was not involved. I understand that, in response to Press inquiries, the staff of the hotel in question denied any knowledge of the bugging. The response is certainly substantiated by Mr Aitchison’s account. It is interesting to note also that the Malaysian concerned blamed ‘Australian Military Intelligence’. If this was the case certainly the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bowen), who then was Attorney-General, would not have been aware of any operations concerned, not having been called upon to authorise them. My concern is that the wide currency of the allegation is evident not only by a report from London that the British Defence Department was aware of the allegation but also by the extract from which I have just quoted.

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

– The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) persists in this allegation. What is he relying on? He has quoted from a statement in a book by Mr Ray Aitchison that somebody told Mr Aitchison something. He relies also on someone having said something to him, not someone who would have known the fact but someone who has relayed a rumour to him. He also says that there is a report from Britain that they had heard of the allegation. What sort of evidence is this to substantiate a responsible member of this Parliament making a grave allegation against the

Government of his own country. My understanding is that the journalists in the Parliamentary Press Gallery at the. time also had heard of this furphy. Some of them spent quite some time in checking the story at the time. It was found universally to be untrue and no-one published it.

Mr Duthie:

– Why did not the. Minister deny it long ago?

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

– Was it the honourable member who asked me to withdraw when I immediately called the allegation a lie yesterday?

Mr Duthie:

– No.

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

– Because one member of the Press Gallery has since written a book in which he has accepted the furphy, the honourable member for St George seizes on this flimsy, unsubstantiated bit of hearsay to come into this House and persist in this grave allegation. The honourable member knows that the Counsellor of the Malaysian High Commission has said that he started it as a joke. Does he suggest that the Counsellor is a liar? The honourable member knows that the Malaysian Government, through the Malaysian High Commissioner, has said that it is satisfied that this incident did not happen and that it is a lot of nonsense. Does the honourable member think that the Malaysian High Commissioner is a liar? Is this what he is suggesting? The thing is too ridiculous for words. I repeat that I was AttorneyGeneral at the time. I did not authorise it. I checked with the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), who was the Prime Minister at the time. He did not authorise it. He was not aware of it. I checked with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and I checked with Hie Department of Defence. This incident did not happen, and it is simply not good enough for the honourable member to pick on these flimsy bits of retailed gossip which are generally known to be false.

Mr Foster:

– I rise on a point of order because of the attitude which the Minister is adopting in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will state his point of order.

Mr Foster:

– The point of order is that this morning an answer to a question by a Minister was based on a conversation that had been overheard in an hotel bar.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– Is this the judgment of a man who is the spokesman for the Labor Party on foreign policy who will base such a grave allegation so damaging to our relations with a friendly country on this flimsy bit of unsubstantiated hearsay? I can only conclude that there is almost no limit to the honourable member’s capacity for mischief.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to deal with a completely different topic but 1 just wonder at the indignation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) at the charge made by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) when it- has been clearly established on a previous occasion that the Australian Government was involved in not dissimilar activities with regard to the Japanese Embassy. I rise to bring before the House a matter which I think is of serious concern and which I hope that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) will clear up in this House. He has made statements outside the House. Last night in another place the matter was debated, but the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) did not give any, real answers to the questions, even though he had consulted the Minister. So I hope that the Minister in this instance will give a clear indication of the position.

Persons who were stood down as a result of the State Electricity Commission dispute in Victoria and who applied for unemployment benefit, are currently receiving 2 types of letters. The first type merely points out that the circumstances of their unemployment render them ineligible for unemployment benefit. I understand that on querying this letter they are told that as they had a job to go back to they did not qualify. This ruling appears to be directed to those people who were not members or who were not eligible to be members of unions, and appears to be a convenient way of denying them the unemployment benefit. These letters are all dated 11th

March. It must have been an extremely busy day because it was a Saturday. The other letters are written in this vein:

To determine your eligibility for unemployment benefits under the Social Services Act in respect of the claim you lodged during the recent Victorian power dispute, it will be necessary to know the name of the trade union or association (if any) to which you belong. Would you, therefore, please answer the questions listed below and return this form as soon as possible? An addressed envelope which does not require a postage stamp is enclosed for this purpose.

Yours faithfully, A. R. KOPP Director

The questions are:

  1. Were you a member of a trade union or association on 2 February 1972?
  2. If so, state which.

There is a space for signature and date. In reply to a telegram from the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) - I also sent a telegram but I did not receive a reply - the Minister said:

In accordance with the policy which was laid down by the then Prime Minister, the AttorneyGeneral, and the Minister for Social Services in April 1947, applicants for unemployment benefit who are members of a union that sponsors or supports an industrial dispute are not entitled to unemployment benefit-‘

I suggest that what was said by somebody in 1947 is rather immaterial. If the Minister wants other quotesI shall quote what was said in 1949 by the then Minister for Labour and National Service in reply to a question. I shall read the question so that there can be no ambiguity about the matter. It states:

Mr CONELAN On Tuesday last I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service whether the Government had given consideration to allowing members of unions who were on strike on the coal-fields to register for unemployment benefit. What is the present position in that respect? How many persons registered for unemployment benefit in Queensland during last week?

Mr HOLLOWAY ; Persons who are members of any union represented on the Combined Mining Unions Council and are employed in the mining industry are not eligible to receive unemployment benefit in respect of the period of the strike.

That is a different proposition from the one which is at present before us. It clearly refers to persons who are employed in the mining industry. The people I am talking about are employed in many industries other than the power generating industry. In many cases they are employed hundreds of miles from any area where power is generated. Irrespective of that ruling, which I think I would contest, I suggest that the wording of the Act could be stretched to cover members of unions who are employed in an industry in which there is a dispute. The wording of the Act is this:

Qualifications for Benefits-

I shall not read it all because I will run out of time -

Subject to this Part, a person (not being . . in receipt of a pension or allowance under PartIII or IV of this Act or a service pension under the Repatriation Act 1920-1954) who -

has attained the age of 16 years . . .

is residing in Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim for a benefit and -

has been continuously so resident for a period of not less than 12 months . . .

satisfies the Director-General that he is likely to remain permanently in Australia . . .

(i) is unemployed and that his unemploy ment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike.

The wording of that provision could not be much clearer. It states: a direct participant in a strike.

But I would like someone to explain to me how a member of the pastrycooks’ union - pastrycooks were involved in the State Electricity Commission dispute because one or two pastrycooks were working in the canteen at Yallourn - working for a firm of cake or pie manufacturers in Melbourne, could be a direct participant in a strike merely because he happened to be a member of the same union. This is guilt by association stretched to the absolute limits. The Government is saying that if Joe is a member of that union he is not entitled to the unemployment benefit but if Jack, standing right beside him, doing the same work and suspended for the same reason, is not a member of that union, he is entitled to the unemployment benefit. This clearly is discrimination against a person because he happens to be a member of a trade union. If the Government wrote into a commercial Act that every member of the Chamber of Manufactures should be fined whenever one of the members of that association was guilty of an offence there would be a hue and cry throughout the country. But the Government is saying that its interpretation of the Social Services Act is that if a person is a member of a trade union, whether he participates in the strike, whether his employment is in any way related to the strike or whether he in any way participates in the decision, he is not entitled to receive the unemployment benefit. I believe that this is stretching legal imagination beyond recognition. The wording of the Act is ‘unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike’. The wording of the Act is not ambiguous; it refers to ‘a direct participant’. Members of the Vehicle Builders Union who work for the Ford motor company in Geelong, the Chrysler motor company in South Australia, the British Motor Corporation and Holden’s in Sydney or the Ford motor company in Queensland were not direct participants in that strike. They may have been members of the same union as about 50 of the people who were on strike but they were not direct participants in that strike. I suggest to the Minister that the interpretation that has been placed on the Act is an extremely wide interpretation which is designed to add to the hardship of the families involved who lost their employment. In my mind there is considerable doubt who was, in fact, to blame, for the strike.

If the Minister takes the trouble to have a look at what has happened in Victoria in the last few days he may reconsider some of his earlier statements. Having gone to arbitration and having received the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Victorian Government has refused point blank to accept that decision. It said: ‘We will have another look at it come September’. What hope is there for the arbitration system of this country when a supposedly responsible government refuses to accept the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in such important matters? I would suggest that this ruling is wrong. I believe that at least 5,000 people in my electorate - I do not know the exact figures although someone purported to know them last night - could have registered with the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service as unemployed. I would think that not less than 2,000 of those people most likely registered. Some would not have done so because the Minister’s ruling appeared in the Press at about that time. But these people are still, some 5 weeks later, waiting for a determination of their claim. Not much money is involved but great hardship is being caused to most of these families. A humanitarian point of view should be taken. These people took no part in the strike, no part in the decision to go on strike and no part in the decision to go back to work after the strike. They are innocent victims who are said to be guilty because of association.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I should like to reply, if I might, to the points raised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). First, I shall deal with what was actually done in Victoria in regard to the last power strike and the courses which were taken. If I remember correctly, the strike commenced on 1st February and concluded; I think on 15 th February. Re-employment took place mainly on 16th and 17th February. As honourable members know, under the Act the first 7 days of unemployment do not count. What we did was this: We ignored the strike as far as 3 categories of people were concerned and we paid them with full continuity irrespective of the strike and irrespective of the union to which they belonged. The categories comprised those people who were registered for unemployment as at 1st February, which was before the strike started; secondly, those people who remained unemployed after 1 8th February, which was after the strike was over; and thirdly, those people who became unemployed not through having been stood down as a result of the strike. Regarding those 3 categories of people, which I think the honourable member would regard as the most important categories, we ignored the whole strike and we paid as though the strike had not taken place.

Those who were stood down fell into 2 categories. Firstly, they were those who were evidently members of unions which were participating in the strike. There were 23 such unions. Secondly, they were those in whose cases there was some measure of doubt. To those in this category my Department sent out something like 1,600 letters.

The honourable member has quoted the form of one of them. I think something over 95 per cent have been replied to now and from memory all but about 200 people have qualified and are being paid. This has virtually cleaned the matter up. There may be one or two cases where there has been an administrative error in the Department. This does happen, even when there is the best will in the world, when this kind of chaos occurs. If there are any such cases honourable members should let them be brought to my attention immediately and I will have a look at them forthwith.

Let me deal now with the other points that the honourable member for Corio has raised; firstly, the legal points relating to what was done and the interpretation of the Act. I must say that 1, as a non-lawyer, feel a certain amount of sympathy with the view that the honourable member has put. But 1 can assure him that I am working on a Cabinet instruction of April 1947 which was signed by Mr Chifley, Dr Evatt and Senator McKenna. Whatever my knowledge of law may be, at least it is inferior to that of Dr Evatt who, being a lawyer, at that time thought that the words of the Act, which were quoted correctly by the honourable member, covered the action the Government has taken. This action was in conformity with what was laid down in 1947 by the then Labor government.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order. I suggest that the Minister has made a grave allegation against the previous Labor administration. He should substantiate it by placing evidence on the table of the Parliament, otherwise his statement is not acceptable.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I can assure the honourable member for Grayndler that that is so. It may well be that we should think in terms of clarifying the Act so that the words clearly state what Dr Evatt thought they stated when he signed that instruction. Perhaps lawyers’ jargon is not always as clear as it should be and perhaps the Act should be clarified to meet this point.

There is remaining one most serious matter, and I do regard this as a serious matter. The honourable member for Corio spoke of hardship and so on. He knows very well that in no case was there more than a few days of unemployment relief involved. In all cases, as far as 1 know, the law was followed and what was done was proper. But what he is really talking about is not this at all. What he and the Australian Labor Party are talking about is something quite different. They are trying to lay down the framework for more rolling strikes. They want more of the strikes in which key men come out, as they did at Yallourn, and disrupt industry. They are now looking forward, through their contacts with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union movement, to other strikes of this character being fomented and brought forward. What they are seeking is a situation where these strikes can be successful because the strikers and other people concerned will be financed by unemployment relief. Let me say quite clearly and definitely that it is the Government’s policy that public money should not be used to finance strikes. At present the honourable member knows very well indeed that, as was shown at Yallourn, the technique is to take out a few key men and throw hundreds of thousands out of work in Victoria. This was done quite deliberately in the hope that the Government would finance the strike and make it possible for the strikers to continue, and to bring down the economy of Victoria, New South Wales or wherever it might be. Apparently this is part of Labor policy. They are not worried. How could they really be worried about these payments which are in respect of only a day or so? Nothing has been done contrary to law or established practice. What they are worried about is what they are plotting for the future and what they know the trade union movement is plotting for the future.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to a point of order. The Minister is behaving in a scurrilous and slanderous manner and imputing that I, who made the speech, am plotting the downfall of the economy of this country. I believe that a Commonwealth Minister, who is sworn to uphold the Crown, should not be allowed in the Commonwealth Parliament to make such irresponsible and childish allegations against a member of the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will not debate the question.

Mr Kennedy:

– He is a senile delinquent.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw that remark.

Mr Kennedy:

– I withdraw it.

Mr Keogh:

– As a member of the Opposition 1 also consider that 1 have been reflected upon by the allegations of the Minister. The Minister has suggested that members of the Labor Party are endeavouring to bring about the downfall of this Government and he should well know that there is no need at all for the Opposition to do this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat unless he has a point of order. He will not debate the matter.

Mr Keogh:

– My point of order is that obviously there is no need for the Opposition to do this when the Government itself is doing it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I would have thought that members of the Opposition

Mr Scholes:

– The Minister made clear allegations against me personally and I want them withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will rule on your point of order, as I have ruled on similar occasions in the past. The honourable member was not mentioned by name at all by the Minister, if I recollect correctly. I have, ruled on this type of matter on many occasions. The Labor Party extends far outside the confines of this Parliament. If the honourable member cannot be identified personally in this matter, there is no point of order.

Mr Scholes:

– My point of order is that the Minister used in hi* opening remarks the words ‘what the honourable member was really saying’. He continued and definitely implied that I was saying this. There is no doubt about that. Read Hansard tomorrow.

Dr Klugman:

– You have just ruled on a point of order that the Labor Party is a large organisation and therefore individual members cannot be defamed - I suppose that is the correct word - by an attack on that organisation. Yesterday you ruled a question out of order which related to the Liberal Party and the League of Rights.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. What I said yesterday in relation to a particular matter does not apply to this case.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

Mr Speaker -

Motion (By Mr Giles) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. (Thursday)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Employment Grants (Question No. 5093)

  1. What checks have been established by the Government to ensure that its non-metropolitan employment creating grants are in fact allocated to the urgent and useful works outlined in a statement by him on 14 February 1972.
  2. What is the total value of the grants already made.
  3. What are the main categories of works to which the grants have been applied and what sum has been applied to each category.
  1. Detailed administration of the funds has been left to the individual State Governments, subject to broad Commonwealth guidelines, including the requirement that a minimum of two-thirds of the grants is to be used for the payment of wages. State authorities are in the best position to determine the allocation of funds and the Government has every confidence that they will be put to the best use, consistent with the objective of having a significant impact on unemployment In non-metropolitan areas.
  2. The total amount of grants paid to State Governments to end February 1972 was $5,901,600.
  3. Details of the main categories of works being undertaken with the grants and expenditure on each are not available. However, the information will be sought from State authorities and I will advise the honourable member when this has been received.

Quarantine Station (Question No. 5128)

If the investigation currently in progress into a high security quarantine station results in the establishment of such a station on Norfolk Island, will the Minister ensure that the station is conducted with such high standards of security as will result in no harm to the people, fauna or flora of this important Australian territory.

The honourable member may be assured that, if the investigation currently in progress into a high security quarantine station results in the establishment of such a station on Norfolk Island, that station will be designed and conducted with such high standards of security as will protect fully the people, fauna and flora of that Australian Territory.

National Health Prescriptions (Question No. 4950)

  1. How many prescriptions were dispensed by approved pharmacies under the National Health Act during 1970-71.
  2. How many approved pharmacies dispensed (a) below 3,000 items and (b) between 3,001 and 6,000 items during 1970-71, and what was the total number of prescriptions dispensed by each of these groups.
  3. What was the prescription volume level of the remaining approved pharmacies at intervals of 1,200 items per year and what total number of items was dispensed at each level.
  4. How many approved friendly societies were there at 30th June 1971 and how many prescriptions were dispensed by them in 1970-71.
  5. What was the prescription volume level of approved friendly societies at intervals of 1,200 items per year and what total number of items was dispensed at each level.
  6. How many approved friendly, societies are there in each State and how many prescriptions were dispensed in each State by these societies in 1970-71.
  7. What was the average price of each prescription dispensed by approved friendly societies in each State, showing national health service and pensioner medical service prescriptions separately.
  1. The total number of prescriptions dispensed by approved pharmacists under the National Health Act during 1970-71 was 71,109,000.

  2. (a) 216 approved pharmacies (including friendly societies) dispensed 3,000 or fewer items in the year 1970-71 and collectively dispensed an approximate total of 429,600 benefit items during the year.

    1. 786 approved pharmacies (including friendly societies) dispensed between 3,001 and 6,000 items in the year 1970-71 and collectively dispensed an approximate total of 3,681,600 benefit items during the .vear.
  3. The following table shows the number of pharmacies against each level of items dispensed during 1970-71 and the approximate total number of items which were dispensed at each level. The levels commence at 6,001 and rise at intervals of 1,200 to 60,000. Pharmacies which dispensed more than 60,000 prescriptions during the year have been grouped in one category.

In relation to the other information requested, lt is a long-standing policy that information concerning identifiable individual pharmacies or relatively small groups of pharmacies is provided only, to, or at the request of, the person or persons in respect of whom the relevant approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits has been granted.

Papua New Guinea: Investment Corporation Board (Question No. 4986)

External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What are the names and positions of the persons who constitute the board of the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea.
  2. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are (i) employed and (ii) housed by the Corporation.
  3. What are the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average salaries and allowances paid by the Corporation to its (i) indigenous and (ii) expatriate employees.
  1. The names and positions of the persons who constitute the Board of the Investment Corporation of Papua and New Guinea are:

Chairman -

  1. S. Owens, O.B.E., Merchant Banker and Chartered Accountant.

Deputy Chairman-

Paulias Matane, Secretary, PNG Department of Business Development.

Members -

  1. G. Crellin, Managing Director, PNG Development Bank.
  2. O. Gutman, First Assistant Secretary (Economic Affairs), Department of External Territories.
  3. H. Johns, Manager and Company Director.

Paul Kamod, Secretary, Madang Association of Co-operatives.

Michael Lugabai, Secretary, Busiba Cooperative Association

  1. G. C. Moyle (ex-officio), Managing Director of the Investment Corporation.

Patrick Paulisbo, Manager of family plantation.

  1. P. Ritchie. C.M.G., Treasurer, PNG Administration.

    1. and (3) At the present stage of its development the Corporation employs one expatriate steno-secretary, who is not housed by the Corporation. She is paid salary and allowances of $4200 per annum.

Overseas Professional Qualifications (Question No. 5053)

  1. Since the establishment of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications in March 1969 how many overseas (a) professional and (b) technical qualifications or categories of qualifications have been granted recognition on the recommendation of the Committee.
  2. Which of the Australian professions and trades continue to decline to give recognition to overseas qualifications.
  1. The Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications is concerned only with overseas professional qualifications. Its terms of reference do not embrace technical or trade qualifications.

The Committee has completed the first stage of its negotiations with eight professions and booklets setting out the requirements of these professions have been published or prepared for publication.

The work of the Committee cannot appropriately be measured in statistical terms. However, the Third Report of the Committee, which will be available to Members shortly, will give details of action being taken to facilitate the recognition of overseas qualifications.

  1. No professional body has declined to cooperate with the Committee.

Immigration: Applications from Macao (Question No. 5206)

  1. How many applications have been received from residents of Macao to immigrate to Australia?
  2. How many applications have been received from Portuguese citizens of Macao now resident in Hong Kong?
  3. How many of the applications have been granted?
  4. How many migrants have arrived as a result of the applications?
  5. How many applications have been refused and what were the reasons for refusal?
  1. During the period 1 January 1967 to 29 February 1972, 76 applications to migrate to Australia were made by Portuguese citizens resident in Macao.
  2. During the same period 1 14 applications were lodged by Portuguese citizens resident in Hong Kong.
  4. No statistics are available as arrivals for settlement are not cross tabulated by nationality and place of former residence.
  5. 42 applications lodged by Portuguese residing in Hong Kong and 30 by Portuguese residing in Macao were rejected. Two of the applications were rejected on medical grounds and the balance because the applicants were ineligible for entry under the policy approved by the Government.

Education: Science and Library Grants (Question No. 5113)

  1. In agreements between the Commonwealth and State Governments with respect to Commonwealth grants for the provision of (a) science and (b) library facilities, is there a clause binding

States to maintain their level of expenditure in each area at the levels existing at the time of the commencement of each scheme.

  1. If so, (a) what is the full text of each clause and on what date was it signed, (b) by what criteria does he decide that a State Government is meeting its obligations under the clause in each case and (c) what evidence is available that each State is in fact meeting its obligation to maintain levels of State expenditure.
  1. and (2). No formal agreement exists between the Commonwealth and the States which binds the States to maintain existing levels of expenditure in the fields of science and library facilities expenditure as at the time the respective Programmes were introduced. The understanding reached between the Commonwealth and State Governments with respect to Commonwealth grants for the provision of science facilities in secondary schools, as contained in a statement made by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, on Sth March 1964, is as follows:

The Commonwealth has made it clear to the States that it expects the sums so provided to be regarded as supplementary and additional to sums which the State would normally provide for education’.

The States had earlier agreed to this arrangement in Ministerial discussions which were held with each State Government.

The same arrangement in respect of the Libraries Facilities Programme was agreed to in discussions with the States prior to the introduction of this Programme.

The understandings reached in respect of the two Programmes do not bind the States to maintain their level of expenditure in each of these two specific areas at the previously existing level. The growth of States’ expenditure on education indicates that the States abide by their agreement to regard the Commonwealth assistance for science and library facilities as supplementary to their normal provisions for education.

Coal (Question No. 4905)

  1. What are the known deposits in Australia of (a) high volatile coking coal and (b) low volatile coking coal.
  2. Where are these deposits located.
  3. What quantity of each type is (a) produced and (b) exported annually.
  1. On 12th September 1971, I released a report compiled by the Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department entitled ‘Australia’s Black Coal Resources’. This report was printedin The Australian Mineral Industry Quarterly Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, June 1971. A reprint of this article has been made available to the hon ourable member and copies of the Quarterly Reviews are available in the Parliamentary library. The assessment indicates much larger reserves than suggested previously. Reserves no deeper than 2,000 feet are assessed at nearly 24,000 million tons of which some 13,000 million tons is regarded as economically recoverable by modern mining methods. Total recoverablereserves of coking quality coal have been assessed at 7,617 million tons of which 4,933 million tons are low volatile (less than 25 percent volatile matter), 847 million tons medium volatile (between 25 percent and 30 percent volatile matter) and 1,837 million tons high volatile (greater than 30 percent volatile matter). These figures will be updated from time to time as further information becomes available.
  2. The low and medium volatile coals are found mainly in the Bowen Basin of Queensland and the South and South Western coalfields of New South Wales. Most of the high volatile coal is found in the Northern, Northwestern and Western coalfields of New South Wales.
  3. Statistics are not available which would enable a complete answer to be given to this part of the question. However, the Joint Coal Board has advised that during the year 1970-71 the total tonnage of coal delivered from those New South Wales and Queensland coalfields which produce low and medium volatile coking coals was 18.94 million tons of which 11.45 million tons was exported. Total deliveries from those . areas of New South Wales producing high volatile coals were 19.36 million tons. This total is made up of a variety of coals and no clear cut distinction can be made as to what tonnage should be classed as high volatile coking coal or what should be classed as high volatile steamingcoal. Of the 19.36 million tons delivered, 5.17 million tons were exported for coking purposes.

Education: Science and Library Grants {Question No. 5112)

  1. What (1) amount and (2) percentage of funds will have been allocated to (a) government schools, (b) Catholic schools and (c) other private schools in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth for (A) science and (B) library facilities from the commencement of each scheme to (I) the end of the present quadrennium or triennium and (II) the year in which each scheme ends.
  2. What (a) amount and (b) percentage of total funds expended to the end of 1971 in each schools system in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth was devoted in each of the schemes to (A) buildings, (B) equipment, (C) books and (D) other purposes.
  3. What (1) amount and (2) percentage of (a) the total funds provided and (b) the funds devoted for building costs was used in each schools system in (i) each State and Territory and (ii) the Commonwealth towards the cost of (A) designing, (B) supervising, (C) erecting buildings and (D) administering Commonwealth funds handled by the State Governments for (I) science and (II) library facilities by the end of 1971.

The Commonwealth Science Facilities and Libraries Programmes do not operate in the Commonwealth Territories but only in the six States. Separate provision is made to ensure that science laboratories and libraries in government and non government secondary schools in the A.C.T. and Northern Territory reach appropriate standards.

and (2) The present programmes for provision of science facilities ends on 30th June 1975. The current biennium for the Libraries programme ends on 31st December 1974. The information sought on expenditure to those dates is set out in the following 2 tables. Funds to be available after those dates is a matter for future Government policy.

  1. For the Science Facilities Program, the information requested for government schools is not available to my Department in the detail requested. Information of the nature sought is at present being compiled in respect of non-government schools, but the amount of work required involving thorough examination of some 800 files going back for nearly eight years means that the information will not be available for a considerable time.
The information sought for the Libraries Program has been compiled on non-government schools from the records of my Department. The available information is set out in the table which follows. The information sought on government schools is not available to my Department in the detail in which it is sought. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The information sought in respect of both government and non-government schools for both Programs is not available in the form and detail requested. {:#subdebate-24-14} #### Brisbane Airport (Question No. 5130) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When will the MasterPlan for the New Brisbane Airport be submitted to the Public Works Committee. 1. What will be the total project cost, when will it commence and how long will it take to complete. 2. Will the project be built step by step: if so, what are the priorities among the three proposed runways and the new terminal. 3. Is there any engineering reason why the proposed runway which will involve resumption of many homes and properties at Cribb Island cannot he constructed further to the south to avoid such inconvenience. 4. Is the Minister seized with the urgency for Brisbane to be provided with facilities commensurate with its importance as a State capital, Australia's third city and a major centre of tourist traffic. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. There is no engineering reason why the main parallel runways cannot be constructed farther south. The very precise location of the runway system is still under study as earlier mentioned. However, the final location of the runways, subject to the needs of air safety, is influenced by the following factors additional to engineering considerations: eliminating noise nuisance with particular regard to the populous areas to the west, south and south-east of the airport; not interfering with existing and planned major developments of the Brisbane River as a port and industrial area which are vital to the metropolitan area of Brisbane; the latest plans for the further expansion of Brisbane including surface transport systems and the Serpentine Scheme, and, the coordinated use of air, road, rail and sea transport. 1. Yes. {:#subdebate-24-15} #### Radio and Television: Religious Sessions (Question No. 4454) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What religious groups are granted free time on television and radio. Broadcasting Control Board. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Is this done by direction of the Australian 1. If so, has the Board considered directing television and radio stations to provide free time for anti-smoking messages. 2. Are radio and television stations prevented from broadcasting anti-religious material; if so, does this cover all or only particular religions. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The religious groups to receive free time under arrangements stated below have been the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Congregational Church and the Salvation Army. 1. The granting of free time on television and radio for religious programmes stems from section 103 of the Broadcasting and Television Act which provides that - 'a licensee shall broadcast or televise from his station Divine Worship or other matter of a religious nature during such periods as the Board determines and, if the Board so directs, shall do so without charge'. Pursuant to this section the Board has determined, among other things, that each television station should provide without charge at least 1 per cent of its normal weekly transmission time to religion, and radio stations at least 1 hour per week; and that the time should be allocated among the various Churches and denominations as far as practicable in proportion to the numbers of adherents to each denomination in the area served by the station as shown in the latest Census. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. As stated above the granting of free time for religion is provided for in the Act. No such provision applies to free time for any other purpose. 1. Stations are free to transmit what would be accepted by the community as fair criticism or comment about religion. Attacks (as distinct from fair comment) on any established religious faith or belief are specifically prohibited by the Board's Standards. {:#subdebate-24-16} #### Television Programme:' The Nuclear Game' (Question No. 4380) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to a programme on ABC television called 'The Nuclear Game'. 1. If so, was this programme unbalanced in regard to the Atomic Energy Commission, with no attempt being made to objectively assess the impact of nuclear energy on society in terms of both positive and negative effects. 2. Will he indicate to the ABC that such poor quality, uninformed reporting is not in the interests of the ABC and the Australian community which, as a result, would not be expected to receive a balanced view of the impact of nuclear power on its culture and environment. 3. What was the cost of production of this programme. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The programme did not attempt to evaluate the Atomic Energy Commission but to explain its work and its plans for the near and distant future. It considered, as far as possible within the limits of one programme, the positive and negative aspects of the use of nuclear energy as, for instance, on the positive side, its value as an alternative to limited fossil fuels, for the production of radio-isotopes for use in research, industry and medicine, the potential of nuclear fusion, etc., on the negative side, the problems of nuclear waste disposal, thermal pollution and the risk of exposure to radiation. 2. Leaving aside the quality of its production, the programme can hardly be described as uninformed reporting as it offered more or less extensive comments by the following experts: {:#subdebate-24-17} #### Sir Phillip Baxter, Chairman Australian Atomic Energy Commission, **Mr Jack** White, Discoverer of the Rum Jungle Uranium Field, {:#subdebate-24-18} #### Professor R. May, Physics Department, Sydney University, {:#subdebate-24-19} #### Dr J. T. Andrews, Head of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, {:#subdebate-24-20} #### Dr Uli Englebert, Head of Radio Isotope Production, Lucas Heights, {:#subdebate-24-21} #### Mr Rex Boyd, Radio Isotope Production Manager, {:#subdebate-24-22} #### Professor C. W. Watson-Munro, Physics Department, Sydney University {: type="1" start="4"} 0. $4,730.30. {:#subdebate-24-23} #### Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5185) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were district officers of the Employment Branch (N.S.W.) of the Department of Labour and National Service recently advised by bis Department that the provisions for granting unemployment benefit to minors had been changed; if so, what was the nature of the change. 1. If district officers were so advised, were similar notifications sent to officers in other States; if so, which States. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Recently my Department instructed all its State Branches to the effect that for unemployment benefit purposes the age at which it would not be unreasonable to expect a single person to accept suitable employment, which involved living away from home, was to be 18 years. Previously a female under 21 years or a male under 19 years was accepted as eligible for benefit notwithstanding refusal to accept suitable employment that involved living away from home.It is believed that the general interests and long-term welfare of young people are best served if they undertake suitable employment as early as practicable after completing their education. {:#subdebate-24-24} #### Sheltered Employment (Question No. 5217) >In respect of the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act, (a) how many persons are there in each sheltered workshop for whom a salary subsidy is paid, (b) how many $500 training fees are paid to organisations for those persons who, after completing more than 6 months sheltered employment, have remained in outside employment for at least 12 months and (c) how many hostels are there for disabled persons, who are able to engage in normal employment, for which the $2 for $1 subsidy for residential hostels is paid. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Salary subsidy is being paid in respect of 978 persons who are employed in 129 sheltered workshops as managers, supervisors, counsellors, etc.; 1. 57 training fees have been approved up to 29th February 1972; 2. Subsidy has been approved towards the cost of 3 such hostels. {:#subdebate-24-25} #### The Arts: Commonwealth Aid (Question No. 4614) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What bodies hasthe Government established for the purpose of administering and distributing Commonwealth aid in support of the Arts. 1. Who are the members of the controlling committees of these bodies, what are their ages and what were their qualifications for appointment in each case. 2. What was the date of appointment in each case. >With the exception of the Commonwealth Literary Fund Committee, the bodies established for the purpose of administering and distributing Commonwealth aid in support of the arts are advisory. They are for the most part made up of private citizens. I know the ages of the persons concerned in only a few instances. > >Details of the bodies concerned are as follows (bodies established within the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are the responsibility of the Minister for the Interior): {: .page-start } page 1070 {:#debate-25} ### NORTHERN TERRITORY There is no single body established specifically for the purpose indicated in the first part of the question. However, Central and Regional Grants Committees have been established to advise the Government on the distribution of aid in support of organisations concerned with cultural, welfare and supporting activities. Members of these committees were selected on the basis of their general interest in the advancement of their communities. {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Army Land: Broadmeadows (Question No. 5270) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the Department of the Army has occupied or will occupy land in Camp Road, Broadmeadows, previously occupied by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. 1. If so, does the Department of the Army intend to use all of the land available. 2. If the Army does not require all of the land, will the surplus be sold. 3. If it is to be sold, will the local municipality, City of Broadmeadows, be given first option to buy. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Department of the Army will occupy about 200 of the 283 acres. 1. About 12 acres is intended to be transferred to the Metropolitan Board of Works for freeway development. There is a Commonwealth requirement for at least part of the balance but the extent has not yet been determined. 2. Any balance of land remaining after Commonwealth and State requirements have been met will be offered to the City of Broadmeadows. {:#subdebate-25-1} #### Canberra: Accidents (Question No. 5152) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names of the street Intersections in Canberra where most accidents have occurred during the last 2 years. 1. What was the date on which each intersection was completed and how many accidents have occurred since at each of these intersections. 2. How many complaints have been received by his Department or the National Capital Development Commission during the last 2 years alleging that danger existed at these intersections because of either faulty design or siting, or the failure to install traffic lights. 3. To whom were these complaints referred for investigation and report. 4. On what dates were the investigations completed and the reports made. 5. Which intersections have been the subject of recommendations for improvements by either changed design or changed siting, or the Installation of traffic lights. 6. On what date was each recommendation made. 7. At which intersections have these recommendations (a) been implemented and (b) not been implemented. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The ten intersections in Canberra where the greatest number of accidents occurred in each of the years 1969 and 1970 are given below. Accurate figures for 1971 are not yet available. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The intersections have been in existence for many years, long before detailed traffic accident records were kept for analysis. 1. to (8) The number of complaints about faulty design or siting or the failure to install traffic lights is not recorded but very few were received. While those complaints that are received are considered, improvements to intersections are far more the outcome of a continuing review of the traffic needs of Canberra having regard to rapidly changing situations. The work of reviewing and providing for Canberra's changing traffic needs is undertaken by the Traffic Co-ordination Committee, the Department of the Interior, the National Capital Development Commission and the A.C.T. Police. Improvements such as signs and road markings are able to be made quickly. Priorities for the modification of existing facilities are not determined solely on the volume of traffic accidents. Factors taken into consideration include changing traffic patterns following completion of major works and residential and commercial development, the severity of accidents, the need to maintain traffic flow and the requirements of pedestrians. Pedestrian lights have been installed as follows: It is currently intendedthat traffic lights will be installed during the next year as follows: Fairbairn Avenue/Campbell Park Road {:#subdebate-25-2} #### Hindmarsh Drive/ Jerrabomberra Avenue Hindmarsh Drive/Yamba Drive Limestone Avenue/Ipima Street Majura Avenue/Cowper Street Marcus Clarke Street/Edinburgh Avenue Jerrabomberra Avenue near Sturt Avenue (pedestrian lights) Carruthers Street, Curtin (pedestrian lights) {:#subdebate-25-3} #### Australian Capital Territory: Delegated Legislation (Question No. 5154) Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many Ordinances, Regulations and other items of delegated legislation relating to the Australian Capital Territory have been tabled in Parliament in each of the last 5 years. 1. What (a) are the titles and (b) is the subject matter of each Ordinance and Regulation tabled. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The following Statutory Rules relating to the Australian Capital Territory were also tabled: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. I understand that the honourable member has all the Australian Capital Territory Ordinances and Regulations, either in bound or loose-leaf form, together with copies of each of the abovementioned Statutory Rules. My Department will be pleased to supply the honourable member with copies of any A.C.T. legislation that he has not received. {:#subdebate-25-4} #### Canberra: Goodwin Homes (Question No. 5146) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say whether the waiting period for accommodation at the Goodwin Homes in the Australian Capital Territory has increased over the last 5 years; if so, what was the waiting period 5 years ago and what is it today. 1. If the waiting period has increased, can he state (a) the reason for the increase and (b) what steps can be taken to shortenit. 2. How many people are on the waiting list at the present time. 3. How many applications for accommodation have been refused in each of the last 5 years. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (4) The question relates to matters which are the concern of the Goodwin Centre Development Association Incorporated, an autonomous organisation which administers the Goodwin Homes. It is suggested that the honourable member should seek this information directly from the Association. {:#subdebate-25-5} #### Australian Capital Territory: Factories and Shops (Question No. 5155) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say how many (a) factories and (b) shops within the meaning of the Factories and Shops Act of New South Wales exist in the Australian Capital Territory. 1. Is it a fact that there is no legislation in the Australian Capital Territory providing minimum standards of safety, a system of inspectors, legal rights and legal protection such as exists in New South Wales in the Factories and Shops Act. 2. Has this situation existed since the creation of the Australian Capital Territory. 3. If so, when will this type of legislation be introduced so that employees working in the Australian Capital Territory in factories and shops will be given at least as much protection and at least as many rights asis given in New South Wales. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. Statistics are not kept on the number of factories and shops in the Australian Capital Territory, as defined by the Factories and Shops Act of New South Wales. 1. No. Although there is no single piece of legislation in the Australian Capital Territory which contains all of the matters in the New South Wales Factories and Shops Act, there are legislation enactments covering a number of specific matters that are dealt with by the New South Wales Act. Examples of such legislation are - Apprenticeship Ordinance Inflammable Liquids Ordinance Machinery Ordinance Building and Services Ordinance Public Health Ordinance Fire Brigades Ordinance Trading Hours Ordinance and Regulations made under this legislation, for example - Boilers and Pressure Vessels Regulations Inspection of Machinery Regulations Canberra Building Regulations Sewerage and Water Supply Regulations Fire Brigades Regulations Public Health Regulations {: type="1" start="3"} 0. See the answer to question 2. 1. This is answered by the answer to question 2. However, it is relevant to add that my department is presently examining the requirements of the Territory for a consolidation and extension of the legislation having particular reference to health, safety and welfare of workers at the work place. Although substantial progress has been made in this examination, indications cannot be given at this stage as to when legislation will be available. {:#subdebate-25-6} #### Australian Capital Territory: Cruelty to Animate and Lost Animals (Question No. 3148) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many complaints have been received by the Australian Capital Territory Police relating to (a) cruelty to animals and (b) lost animals in each of the last 5 years. 1. How many prosecutions were launched by the Australian Capital Territory Police arising out of cruelty to animals in each of those years. 2. How many convictions resulted from these prosecutions. 3. How many times have the Police been called upon to destroy animals in each of the same years. 4. How many times have the Police passed on for the attention of a departmental ranger complaints received concerning lost animals in each of the same years. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. , (4) and (5) As separate statistics for these matters are not kept the information is not readily available. 1. and (3)- {:#subdebate-25-7} #### Housing: Darwin (Question No. 5139) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many new homes were built by the Government and Housing Commission in Darwin in 1971. 1. How many of these were made available to citizens for (a) purchase and (b) lease. 2. How many citizens were recorded on the waiting list for houses at (a) 1st January 1971, and (b) 31st December 1971. 3. How many blocks of land were released for sale in Darwin in 1971. 4. What was the average price per square foot for a block of land in Darwin during each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. 5. Is there an excess of supply over demand for blocks of land in Darwin; if so, why are more blocks not being released. >(1)- > >Government - 282 (includes 18 flats) > >Housing Commission - > >272. > >(2)- > >Government - > >All houses erected by the Government are for lease by public servants only. After twelve months' tenancy, a public servant may apply to purchase a residence. > >Housing Commission - > >All houses built by the Commission are for leasing by citizens other than public servants. After three months' tenancy, a tenant may apply to purchase. > >(3)- > >Government - > >285 > >329 {:#subdebate-25-8} #### Housing Commission - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 504 1. 509. (4)- 184 residential 4 industrial (5)- 1969- 27c 1970- 21c 1971- 29c. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-25-9} #### Canberra: Transport Section (Question No. 5153) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many buses are in the Government bus fleet in the Australian Capital Territory. 1. How many trainees are employed by the Transport Section of his Department. 2. How many employees of the Transport Section are employed as drivers. 3. Is it a fact that the Transport Section would be able to provide a better public transport service for the people of Canberra if it possessed more buses and more staff. 4. Is it also a fact that the Transport Section would be more viable and better able to supply the transport services of Canberra if it were also permitted to do charter bus work and conduct guided bus tours for tourists in the Australian Capital Territory. 5. What is the estimated percentage increase in the number of tourists visiting Canberra each year. 6. Will he take steps to enlarge the Transport Section and give whatever other directions are necessary to enable it to compete with private enterprise in satisfying the overall transport needs of the Australian Capital Territory. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 169. 1. 4 trainee drivers. 2. 312. 3. It would be possible to provide a more frequent service if the Department possessed more buses and employed more drivers but it is not considered that it is necessary or that it would be economic to do so. 4. No. For a number of years charter tour work in the Australian Capital Territory has been undertaken. 5. Approximately 10 per cent per annum. 6. With the exception of the QueanbeyanCanberra bus service, the Department provides the only commuter transport service in the Australian Capital Territory. Vehicles, equipment and manpower resources are kept under constant review and are increased in line with the city's development and the need to expand services. {:#subdebate-25-10} #### Electoral (Question No. 5085) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a) number of electors and (b) population in each electoral division at the time of the last re-distribution. 1. What are the present figures. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) and (b) See answer funished in response to Question No. 1681 (Hansard dated 1st October 1970). 1. (a) The number of electors in each electoral division as at 25th February 1972 is set out in the table below. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The preliminary totals of population in each electoral division as at the 1971 Census were furnished in response to Question No. 4567 (Hansard dated 9th and 10th December 1971). No later figures are available from the Commonwealth Statistician. {:#subdebate-25-11} #### Radioactivity Levels (Question No. 5142) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is be able to say whether Commonwealth or State Government authorities monitor radioactivity levels in water, grass, food and bones in various parts of Australia. 1. If so (a) what Government authorities are undertaking this work and (b) when was the work commenced in each case. 2. What are the results of the work in the case of water, grass, food and bones during each of the years since the work commenced. >Monitoring radioactivity levels in Australia is the responsibility of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee which reports to the Minister for Supply. Measurements are taken on behalf of the Committee at twenty-six stations in Australia and the Territory of Papua New Guinea. Many State and other authorities, such as the Bureau of Meteorology, the Defence Standards Laboratories, the Commonwealth X-Ray and Radium Laboratory and the various Milk Boards, cooperate in the monitoring programmes. Monitoring by Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee commenced in 1956 and continues today. > >Numerous detailed reports have been issued on the various monitoring programmes. These reports have been published in the Australian Journal of Science and lately in summary reports issued by the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee, No. 1 dated February 1971 and No. 2 dated May 1971, which have been tabled in the Parliament. The third summary report will be tabled shortly. {:#subdebate-25-12} #### Aviation Fuels (Question No. 5014) Supply, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the conditions of the contracts let to the four oil companies for the supply of aviation fuel to Australian Government Departments over the next 5 years at a price of $92m as mentioned in his Press release of 4th January 1972. 1. What are the terms of the contracts let to Mobil Oil Australia Ltd and B.P. Australia Ltd for the supply of aviation gasoline at a cost of $9m as referred to in the Press release. >It would be contrary to long established policy and practice to publish particulars of the conditions and terms of individual contracts since such information would include matter regarded as confidential between the Commonwealth and its contractors. > >Nevertheless it can be said that the Commonwealth required supplies of several types and grades of aircraft fuel delivered to various locations in Australia and its Territories, and that the contracts were arranged with the lowest, lower, or only suitable tenderer for each requirement at each location following an invitation of tenders extended to all Australian companies considered capable of meeting the Commonwealth's requirements. > >The contracts are of the period variety in which the Commonwealth does not commit itself to ordering any particular quantity but only such quantities as may be required from time to time by the several user departments. > >The prices for each item in the respective contracts are expressed as a rate per imperial gallon for each type and grade of fuel and are subject to variation in respect of movements of market prices of raw materials, freight rates, exchange rates, etc. {:#subdebate-25-13} #### Department of Works (Question No. 5237) {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has it been necessary to appoint an efficiency expert to investigate the way the Minister's Department works, if so, why. 1. If an efficiency expert has been appointed, (a) How much per day is he paid, (b) From what date has he been paid, (c) How long has he been working, and (d) Has he submitted a report. 2. If he has not submitted a report, when is a report expected. >The Department of Works, which is responsible for the expenditure of approximately $400m annually, including the cost of its own administration, is continually reviewing its procedures and practices, as does any major organisation in Government or industry, in order to improve, wherever practicable, its operational and administrative efficiency and standards of service. > >Over the last two or three years several specific review studies have been undertaken. The details are: > >New South Wales- A special committee comprising departmental officers and a Management Consultant has examined the existing organisation of the New South Wales Region of the Department. > >In line with the development in leading similar organisations overseas and in Australia, the Department is developing a multidisciplined approach to the design and construction of its more important works. It is also increasing the extent of its planning efforts and co-ordination to ensure that works are produced economically, efficiently and as quickly, as practicable. Reference to this matter is made in the Public Service Board's report 1970, pp. 12-13. > >Victoria - In the Victorian Region, the Department, utilising the services of its Assistant Director-General (Operations) and his staff, together with Management Consultants, has been engaged in developing and assisting with the introduction of a planning, control and a performance measurement system in relation to the operation of the day labour activities of the Department. > >South Australia - A Joint Departmental/ Public Service Board Team has examined the functions, operations, establishment and workload of the South Australian Region of the Department and has reported to the appropriate authorities on the nature, level and scope of existing functions and on an organisation appropriate in size for current workloads. > >Queensland- A Joint Departmental/Public Service Board Team has reviewed the appropriateness of the staffing levels in the Queensland Region of the Department, having regard to both current and foreseeable workloads. The relevant report is nearing completion. > >Papua New Guinea - A special committee comprising departmental officers and a former State Government Director of Public Works has, and is continuing to examine organisational changes and the type of professional assistance which can be rendered by the Department of Works when the responsibility for the whole of the Works function is taken over by the Papua New Guinea Administration.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720322_reps_27_hor76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant