House of Representatives
24 October 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3001

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Overseas Aid

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

That hunger, illiteracy, abject poverty and injustice are intolerable anywhere in the world.

That the knowledge, skills and resources to change these unjust conditions now exist.

That to obtain justice among peoples, world financial and trading systems can and must be changed.

That Australia has the capacity to play a more significant part in enabling the developing countries to achieve improved social conditions for all their people.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that . . .

Australia’s official development assistance in 1972-73 be increased to at least $240 million.

Australia’s aid policies be reviewed so that aid given provides maximum benefit to the peoples of developing countries.

Australia’s trade policies be reviewed to provide more favourable conditions for developing countries. by Mr Malcolm Eraser, Mr Brown, Mr Collard and Mr Corbett.

Petitions received.

Australian Aircraft Industry

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees of the Australian aircraft industry in New South Wales and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the government’s policy of producing components in Australia for aircraft purchased overseas for our civil and defence requirements, does not fulfil the needs of industry to ensure -

  1. Full employment.
  2. The necessity to keep abreast of technological advancement and the application of the latest techniques of aeronautical engineering.

That the purchasing of aircraft from overseas does not entirely meet the Australian requirements and conditions, but have to be accepted due to the lack of along range plan for defence require ments and associated specifications necessary for the Australian industry to produce aircraft to meet these requirements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Federal Government in order to provide employment for the technical, design and manufacturing teams of the New South Wales section of the Australian aircraft industry, take immediate action to ensure the re-equipment of the armed forces with Australian designed and produced aircraft and accessories by:

  1. Compiling long range planning of requirements.
  2. Compiling detailed specifications of aircraft and equipment allowing sufficient time for industry to intelligently appraise requirements and submit proposals accordingly.

Whilst fulfilment of the above would provide a solid foundation for the distant future, an immediate necessity exists to provide work in the factories now and to this end, offset manufacturing is the probable immediate answer, although from our experience the policy of producing parts against offset orders, does not provide work for technical and design teams, but only provides production work for the workshops of parts which are pre-designed and pre-tooled by the originating overseas manufacturers.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles Jones, Mr Keating, Mr Martin and Mr Reynolds.

Petitions received.

Canberra: Development of Parkland

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 the National Capital Development Commission have advised us of their intention to develop the entire western side of Melrose Drive with Flats and Town Houses.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the aforesaid strip of land on the whole western side of Melrose Drive be reserved for development as parkland. Your petitioners are concerned that such a development will place an excessive strain on the schools of the area, and will result in a diminution of the land available for recreational purposes, and will create traffic hazards.

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

Petition received.

Advertising in Telephone Directories

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

That we, the undersigned, protest against the action of the Commonwealth Government in letting the contract for the advertising rights for the

Victorian Pink Pages Telephone Directories to an American company, General Telephone & Electronics Corp., U.S.A., trading in Australia as Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd.

That this will mean that the American company now controls the Telephone Directory Advertising in all but one State of the Commonwealth.

We respectfully request that this contract be revoked in the national interest, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford.

Petition received.

Education: Pre-school and After-school Centres

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

Pre-school and after-school education facilities are in urgent need within the Australian community. The shortage has become more acute as more mothers join the work force.

In advanced countries pre-school and afterschool education are recognised as essential aspects of education for all children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to provide the necessary finance to enable state education departments and local government authorities to establish:

  1. Pre-school centres
  2. After-school centres
  3. Facilities for training the staff for such centres.

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

Petition received.

page 3002

QUESTION

WINE TAX

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he will study the statement by his predecessor the right honourable member for Higgins when he spoke at Renmark in South Australia on 3rd October and said:

I have a confession to make. I was the man who brought in the wine tax but am now prepared to admit it was a mistake.

Will the Prime Minister also note that the Deputy Prime Minister, in a statement in support of his candidate in the electorate of Angas, stated that the Country Party stands for the abolition of the wine tax in its entirety? In view of these statements by the 2 men on either side of him will the Prime Minister agree that the wine tax should go?

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

– I will have a look at the question asked by the honourable gentleman but I remind him that if he is accurate on this occasion it will be one of the first occasions I have known him to be accurate since he came into this place.

Mr Grassby:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– When an honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation it is usual to wait until after question time.

page 3002

QUESTION

CANBERRA-TUMUT ROAD

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a. question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Did he in a recent statement say that the Federal Government was developing, in consultation with the States, a programme for further improving the national highway system? Did the Minister also say that our major interstate links did need considerable improvement? Will the Minister press for an up-to-date assessment of the already surveyed Tumut-Canberra road? Is he aware that such a road would provide a shorter and more direct route to Canberra from Victoria, South Australia and the Riverina? Does he not agree that a direct Canberra-Tumut road would become a major interstate link and would relieve pressure upon Australia’s busiest and most dangerous road, the Hume Highway?

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

– Over a period of about 5 years now the honourable member for Hume has shown a particular interest in this road, recognising the importance that the opening of this road would be to Tumut in giving that town direct access to Canberra. The honourable member cast his question in somewhat wider terms today, recognising as he does that this road could be an important intrastate and interstate link. The situation is that we have announced a programme of consultation with the States to work out a national highways programme to be included in the next Commonwealth aid roads legislation. This road will be part of the study for that legislation. I will advance the honourable member’s concern and interest in the matter to the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads to make sure that that body is aware of the consideration that the honourable member has given to the question.

page 3003

QUESTION

PRICE-INCOME POLICIES

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has the right honourable gentleman any intention of honouring his undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition, given last February, that he would introduce for the consideration of the House a White Paper on a price control or a prices justification tribunal? Can we anticipate the presentation of this paper prior to the termination of the present Parliamentary sittings?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The honourable gentleman has not accurately reflected what I said in the House. I said that a paper would be produced, if it were practicable, relating to the price-income policies of other countries. I gave no assurances whatsoever of what the consequences of that might be. But if the honourable gentleman had taken a real interest in political life he would have perhaps seen the television programme ‘Monday Conference’ in which Professor Downing raised this very question of price-income policies. I was then able to inform Professor Downing, and he confirmed to me that his opinion coincided exactly with my own, that if one looked at the countries that have price-income policies and those that do not have price-income policies, one would find that those which are most successful - and some are outstandingly successful - are those that have not introduced price-income policies. Those which have introduced price-income policies solely for political reasons usually have the greatest rate of inflation.

page 3003

QUESTION

APPLICATIONS FOR PENSIONS

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for Social Services a question. What increase has there been in the number of applications for pensions since the Social Services Act 1972 came into operation? Has the publicity campaign contributed towards this increase, and was this campaign justified?

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

– The relevant Bill received the royal assent on 27th September. I think that 6,000 applications were received in the first week after that date, 12,000 in the next week, 15,000 in the third week and 16,000 in the week just closed. This would contrast with something between 2,500 and 2,700 as the normal rate of applications each week. Therefore one would say that since the Act came into operation something like 38,000 extra applications already have been received. It is impossible to say exactly to what extent the advertising has contributed towards this, but in my view it contributed substantially, and is entirely justified. It is desirable that the increase in the number of applications should occur. May I note with some regret that members of the Opposition have endeavoured to prevent this advertising going out and have been quite unjustfiably critical of it.

Mr Keogh:

– How will you substantiate that?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– How will I substantiate it? As it happens I have the documents in front of me which will substantiate exactly what I have said and, since I have been asked by the Opposition to do so, I will have much pleasure in quoting from those documents. On 20th September last the honourable member for Oxley wrote to me what I can describe only as a smarmy letter.

Mr Keogh:

– You are misconstruing the purpose, that is all.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– In caseI have misconstrued it I will be quite happy to have it incorporated in Hansard, if the House will permit me to do so. I think I am justified in describing it as an extremely smarmy letter, and in it the honourable member for Oxley said:

Finally, can you arrange for copies of all advertising material to be made available for scrutiny by the Leader of the Opposition and myself before the material is used. I feel this request is necessary and ought to be acceded to because there are many suspicious minds, not among the Opposition members of course, who harbour the hunch that the Government is going to usetaxpayers money for propaganda purposes rather than straight out information purposes–

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to order. I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to page 16 of the booklet entitled ‘Business and Procedures of the House of Representatives’, where the following is stated:

If it is necessary for a long answer to be given, the proper procedure is for the Minister to indicate that at the end of question time he will seek leave to make a statement.

We know that the Minister for Social Services infringes this provision regularly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will not make comments. I remind the House that if we are to cut answers down to an impossible extent, we will have to apply the same rule to questions. There is no point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I thank you, Mr Speaker, but in this case I was provoked by the Opposition. I have quoted what I have referred to as a smarmy letter. On the same day the honourable member for Oxley issued a Press statement which was quite different from the smarmy letter that he wrote to me. The Press statement, which contrasts with the letter, stated:

The Government, though there has been no official announcement, will spend more than $160,000 on this advertising campaign this year - nearly 8 times the amount spent on similar material last year.

My information from reliable departmental sources is that the material will promote the Liberal Government as well as outlining the changes brought about by last month’s Budget.

Honourable members can contrast the smarmy letter written to me with what was said in the Press statement on the same day by the same man. This throws light on the attitude of this individual. In a way it is impossible to have factual advertising put out which does not to some extent give credit to this Government because what we are advertising is the fact that so many more people are eligible for pensions because of what this Government has done.

page 3004

QUESTION

PRICE FIXATION SCHEMES

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Cunningham. Have the relevant departments prepared the White Paper on price fixation schemes which he told me on 22nd February last he had given them urgent instructions to prepare and which he said they were preparing as a matter of great urgency? If the White Paper has been prepared will he carry out the promise he made on that occasion, 22nd February last, that there would be abundant opportunity to discuss it in the House?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– As I said, I did ask the Treasury to prepare this document as a matter of urgency but I think the House will recognise that so many matters have intervened in the meantime that the Trea sury has been literally inundated and has had to give priority to matters of ever so much greater importance than this. Regrettably, therefore, I have grave doubts whether the paper can be completed in time for it to be presented to the House, but I will have to check this with the Treasurer before I can be precise about it. I regret it, but it is pressure of business and only pressure of business that has prevented the Treasury from preparing the paper and submitting it to the House.

page 3004

QUESTION

INDIA

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Indian Government a short while ago seize the assets of Queensland Insurance Co. Ltd in India and pay unilaterally very inadequate compensation amounting really to confiscation? Has this action been further compounded by even these meagre, inadequate compensatory proceeds being denied exchange control permission for repatriation to Australia? Has the Minister lodged a strong complaint with the Indian authorities about this treatment of Australian nationals? Will he consider diverting some of the financial assistance now being afforded to the Indian authorities to compensate Australian nationals for the uncivilised conduct of the Indian Government?

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

– It is a fact that the Indian Government passed the General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act 1972 and gazetted it, I think, in May of this year. In doing so it was following out an objective which it had in common with the Australian Labor Party. The Act provided for compensation but the insurance companies regarded the compensation as quite inadequate. Queensland Insurance Co. Ltd was one Australian company concerned. Following the gazettal of the Act the Australian Government made strong representations to the Indian Government. So did other governments, and the governments of Great Britain, New Zealand and Sweden come to mind. They have made strong representations to the Indian Government in regard to the amounts of compensation. The representations were unsuccessful and a further Act relating to compensation was passed by the Indian Government in August last.

The matter reached that stage of finality but there still remained the question of whether, even in respect of the compensation that was allowed, the companies would be able to bring it out of the country, whether they would be able to convert the assets and repatriate the proceeds. Restrictions are imposed on such action and we are currently making representations to endeavour to ensure that the companies concerned will be able at least to realise what is available to them in India and to bring the proceeds back to Australia. That is where the matter rests at present. With regard to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, it is not our practice to make the giving or withholding of aid a kind of pressure point to influence the domestic policies of governments. I will certainly follow this matter very closely but I am not prepared now to tell the honourable member that I will be willing to use Australia’s aid programme to bring pressure on a country which we are endeavouring to assist with that programme.

page 3005

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for the Army whether he was correctly reported in last Friday’s Press as saying that national service would not be needed in two or three years. Is it the Minister’s great dream to see an army of volunteers with national service terminated, but still there to be used if numbers drop again? If these are the Minister’s genuine beliefs, and in view of the present buoyancy of recruiting, will he appoint a commission of inquiry to look at ways of forming an adequate all volunteer Army as quickly as possible? Finally, is the support of the Minister for an all volunteer Army in marked contrast to the views of his colleague, the Minister for Defence, who favours an eternal commitment to conscription?

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

– I think the last part of the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may be answered by saying that no member on our side of the House would ever favour the cutting out of national service if there was any risk whatsoever of the numbers in our Army dropping below those required. I welcome the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be cause it will enable me to clarify what I actually did say. This was that, should £he rate of volunteers reach a point where we achieved in our Army the numbers that we want, we would not cut out national service but national service would in all probability remain dormant. Then, if the numbers of volunteers- (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr KATTER:

– It is not amusing.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr KATTER:

– It is not surprising that they interjected. They regard the defence of this country as being of such little consequence that it is always a laughing matter. But it is a deadly serious matter. Let me clarify the position precisely: The question of cutting out national service would not be one for decision by me in any case. It is a matter of Government policy. The creation of a commission of inquiry would be a matter for my senior colleague, the Minister for Defence. To clarify the matter again: No, I did not precisely say that national service would be cut out. I did not say that at all. I said that a position could be reached where the volunteer system was sufficiently successful, but there is no indication at present that it will be. In no circumstances would we cut out national service. But the point could be reached where national service would remain a dormant instrument to be brought back into action immediately if it were required.

page 3005

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– The Minister for Primary Industry said last week that the Australian Agricultural Council would consider at its February meeting the matter of production controls for the dairy industry. Will the Minister ensure that production controls are not introduced until or unless they are necessary? Will the Minister ensure that a reasonable buffer stock of dairy products is allowed to accumulate before controls are considered necessary, remembering that periods of oversupply in the dairy, wheat and wool industries have been followed by periods of world shortage? Will he also state why Government assistance to the dairy industry has been reduced this year?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The position regarding controls of production in the dairy industry is that the Australian Dairy Industry Council last year brought forward a proposal for a 2-price quota scheme. This created some difficulties for the Victorian Government which, in turn, put forward a proposal for a system of controlled production with regard to factories within a State, as distinct from the licensing of producers themselves. After this matter was considered at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting in Mackay and again in Melbourne on Monday of last week, there is now acceptance by all States that within different States of Australia different schemes can operate as long as a national quota applies and State quotas are determined within that quota. In other words, there can be a quota based in some States on factory production and in other States on the licensing of individual farmers. That would be a matter for individual States themselves to determine.

In relation to the alternative proposal of production control, the matter of its details has been referred back to the Australian Dairy Industry Council for its consideration and for any recommendations that it may wish to put forward to the Agricultural Council. I have taken note of the suggestion made by the honourable member that he is concerned that no form of production control should be immediately introduced. Regrettably, world prices both for butter and for some other milk products are at the moment sliding. One cannot be too sure that the increase in stocks in the European Economic Community will not very shortly have a further dampening effect on general world prices for dairy products. In these circumstances it is necessary that there be available a form of production control for the dairying industry as early as possible. It has been suggested not that it should be immediately introduced but that it should be available for introduction when circumstances require. In terms of the reason for the reduction in the dairy stabilisation payment this year, I think that all members of the House are aware that the decision on the level of funds to support the dairy industry must be taken in advance of the 12-month period in which they will apply. At the time when the decision was taken this year world prices were significantly above the point at which they were when the decision was taken 12 months before. In anticipation of a reasonable level of prices prevailing, and considering the fact that the prices for whole milk products are the highest for many years, it was felt that in order to cover the short fall in export income the allocation of $28m-odd would enable the dairy industry to open at the customary initial price of 34c a lb for cream.

The position in the dairy industry is that prices today are at exactly the same level as they were at this stage last year. For that reason I think it is premature for the industry to be concerned about the impact of possible future price trends. - If price trends do move significantly and adversely to the dairy industry, of course the Government will do as it has done in the past, namely, take note of that position and consider the implication for the dairy industry. At this stage the price received for the delivery of butter to. the butter factory is identical with the price paid at the similar period last year and, indeed, with the price prevailing over many years. For that reason the concern expressed is premature.

page 3006

QUESTION

APPLICATIONS FOR PENSIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Social Services a question. I refer to a sarcastic letter which I sent to him privately and which he decided to make public today in an unprecedented fashion. Does he recollect that in that letter I asked him to supply details of the costs of the programme he referred to this morning and the costs of the last similar type of programme undertaken by the Government? Does he recollect that he did not answer this question in replying to the letter and that I subsequently sent him a telegram which has not even been replied to seeking this information? When will these details be supplied and why has the Minister been so skilful to this point in not supplying them?

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– I think that the honourable member’s memory must be at fault because I did answer that telegram. I am sorry if my reply was not delivered, but I will take appropriate steps to see that the matter is checked. I now take the opportunity of putting some figures before the House, if the House is interested in them. If the honourable member will remember, in his letter he said that he had information, from what he described as reliable departmental sources’, that the cost involved was $160,000. Actually, the cost was $76,000. In addition to that an amount of about $20,000 was spent on supplementary advertising in regard to the rather complicated matter of superannuation. But this subsequent amount came out of the normal annual vote.

I draw attention to 2 things which I think are important. Firstly, the concessions made in this Budget were more far reaching than those made in a couple of earlier Budgets. For that reason it was necessary to give the concessions greater publicity. The Government really is trying to pay pensions to all those entitled to them. Apparently the Opposition does not want this to occur because it is quite ready to sacrifice the interests of potential pensioners for what it regards as a political gain. It does not want pensioners to apply before the election. I justify entirely the expenditure on this publicity by the results that have been achieved and the very large flood of applications for pensions that have been received.

However, there is a more important point that I should draw to the attention of the House, and I ask that it be taken seriously. The honourable member cast a slur on the officers of my Department because he implied very clearly that he had been receiving underhand and surreptitious information from my Department. As it happened, of course, the information which he alleged he had received was entirely wrong. I defend the officers of my Department. I do not believe that they did give to the honourable member for Oxley this surreptitious and underhand information. But what I do say is that members of the Opposition should be a little careful about the way in which they try to traduce by implication members of the Commonwealth Public Service. I have every confidence in my officers and I believe that, if these kinds of statements are credited - I believe that they will not be credited - they can end only in casting some kind of smear and slur on my Department. I believe that the officers of my Department do perform their duties honourably, and effectively, in spite of what members of the Opposition have implied.

page 3007

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX: POTATOES

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer a question. The recently published quarterly consumer price index showed an increase of 1.4 per cent. Why were potatoes listed in this increase when in fact for the last quarter potatoes were at the lowest price for many years - lc and below per lb? Can the Treasurer inform the House as to who is getting the rake-off between the grower and the consumer?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The consumer price index showed over the totality an increase for the September quarter of 1.4 per cent. This was a satisfactory figure, although it was not as good as we wanted. This was the third quarter of the year. The figures far the previous quarters were 1.1 per cent and 0.9 per cent. So, the Government can feel that it has made an impact on containing prices.

Mr Connor:

– That is 6 per cent annually.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The underlying rate of price increases at present is about 5 per cent, whereas it was 7 per cent in the calendar year 1971. Anybody who wishes to take away credit from the efforts of the Government is doing it for his own political purposes and not objectively. The honourable member for Ballaarat referred to the item of potatoes. There was a fall in the price of potatoes as registered by the Commonwealth Statistician in the June quarter and there was no increase in the price of potatoes in the September quarter. So, the rise in the consumer price index in the September quarter owes nothing to an increase in the price of potatoes. As to where the profit is going, as the honourable gentleman put it, I think it is a matter for the growers themselves to consider the way in which they can protect their income from the product of their effort.

page 3007

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: EXPATRIATE OFFICERS

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement by the New Guinean Chief Minister, Mr Michael Somare, in which he said that his national coalition Government was well aware of the uncertainty felt by many expatriate officers and was concerned at the delays in finalising the revised employment security scheme for permanent overseas officers? Has the Prime Minister yet received the report commissioned from Mr Simpson on 3rd August this year, and will he expedite the Government’s decision on this matter as it is causing very great concern to the staff in Papua New Guinea and, probably, a great loss to the future staff of an independent Papua New Guinea particularly, as I understand it, in the area of teaching services?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am aware of the problem raised by the honourable gentleman. It has given my colleague the Minister for External Territories, in particular, a great deal of concern. But I have not received the report referred to by the honourable gentleman.

page 3008

QUESTION

ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING STATIONS

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 1 refer to the recent proposal of the United Nations Stockholm conference on the environment for the setting up of atmospheric monitoring stations. Is the Minister able to say whether such a station will be built in Australia?

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

– This proposal at the United Nations arises from the recent Stockholm conference and the report from that conference. The Australian mission at the United Nations has been instructed to indicate Australia’s readiness to co-operate in carrying out the earth watch in respect of atmospheric pollution. As has been reported, Sir Laurence Mclntyre, who is the leader of our mission there, has suggested that Australia be one of probably 10 sites for an atmospheric watch station. These would be stations around the world and we are offering to have one of them in Australia.

page 3008

QUESTION

EQUAL PAY CASE

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question. In the combined national wage and equal pay case which the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will commence hearing today will the Commonwealth, through its counsel, be opposing or supporting the claim by the Australian

Council of Trade Unions and other organisations for equal pay for equal work for women?

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

– The honourable gentleman knows full well that matters which are before the Commission should properly not be the subject of canvass in this House. In terms of the specific point he raised, the Commonwealth submission will be before the Commission in due course.

page 3008

QUESTION

DRUG CHARGES

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Will the Minister for Immigration assure the House that any person resident in Australia by virtue of a visitor’s visa or any temporary permit who is convicted on drug charges will be dealt with in the same swift manner as one Joe Cocker was, so that it will be clearly seen by all that it is not *ho you are but rather what you have done that counts?

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

– I can assure the honourable gentleman that so far as it lies within my powers as Minister for Immigration to consider whether any person should remain in Australia - this of course, does not apply to an Australian citizen, as I think the honourable gentleman mentioned - the matter will be duly considered in exactly the same way as the case of Mr Cocker was considered, and the Government will apply the same firm attitude based on the very serious view it takes of offences of this sort.

page 3008

QUESTION

TAXATION

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

-I direct a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that many people in receipt of superannuation income regard income tax as being iniquitous on the basis that their income is virtually the return of capital they have subscribed? Has the Government lent weight to this contention by recent amendments to the Social Services Act whereby concessional treatment is given to the superannuation income? For example, a person aged 69 with a superannuation income of $4,000 is deemed to have an income for the purposes of that legislation of §2,800. Accordingly, will the Treasurer apply the same concessional rate for income tax purposes so that the same income as in the example quoted would be deemed to be $2,800 and not $4,000?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for paying tribute to this particular measure in the Budget. T think it was a great advance for those people who have contributed to their own post-retirement income. I will consider the point raised by the honourable gentleman.

page 3009

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Am I correct in my understanding that quota deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board set for the 1972-73 harvest have been suspended and that a first advance payment will now be made on all wheat available for delivery to the Board’s licensed receivers in all States? If this is so, will a first advance payment of 110c a bushel also be paid on the over-quota deliveries from the previous harvest which have already been not only sold but also shipped?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– -At the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council in Melbourne recently we decided that, as far as possible, all wheat received into silo in the 1972-73 year would be treated as readily saleable wheat and so should be entitled to a $1.10 first advance payment. There have been some technical difficulties within the legislation of each of the States in terms of the implementation of this recommendation. I am not in a position to advise the House at this moment whether all those difficulties have been resolved. However, it is my understanding that it will be possible for the substance of what the honourble gentleman seeks in his question to be realised. All of the wheat that has been grown this year will be received for the purpose of attracting the first payment. I will look into the implications of making payments for deliveries from earlier harvests and I will advise the honourable member in due course.

page 3009

QUESTION

STATE EDUCATION IN VICTORIA: COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Has a request been received from the Victorian Government for the issue of a stamp to commemorate the centenary of State education in Victoria in January 1973? If a request has been received, can the Postmaster-General advise whether it was accepted or rejected? If no request has been received will the Postmaster-General give urgent consideration to issuing a stamp commemorative of such an important event?

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

– I cannot remember whether a request has been received but I can inform the honourable member that, if it has not, it would be impossible now to prepare a stamp for issue early in 1973. It takes between 12 and 18 months to design a stamp, print it and distribute stocks throughout Australia. Any organisation which wants a commemorative stamp issued has to make application well in advance so that consideration can be given to it together with the many other requests that are received. Approximately 8 commemorative stamps a year is the maximum which can be issued in addition to the other stamps which are issued on the initiative of the Post Office, such as the States’ national flowers, the Prime Ministers series, the birds series and others which we believe are justified to be included in our stamp programme. I will advise the honourable member if a request from Victoria has been received. Generally it is only something of Australia-wide interest rather than local or only State interest that justifies the issue of a stamp.

page 3009

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: Has his attention been drawn to the serious allegation made in this Parliament that something very shady is going on in the Treasury and the Department of Labour and National Service and that for political reasons public servants are deliberately withholding vital information from the Parliament? Will the Treasurer investigate this serious allegation concerning the public servants under his authority?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I am aware of the accusations made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh against the Department of Labour and National Service, whose officers I know very well, and the Treasury, whose officers now work with me. I was very disturbed at the allegation. It was an attack on the probity, reputation and character of those officers. It was an extraordinary attack by a member of the front bench of a Party which claims their political support and which periodically attempts to persuade the Public Service that its interests would better be served by a Labor government. But when such attacks are continually made I wonder how public servants, whether they be Commonwealth or State public servants, could entertain that point of view.

This was not an isolated attack at all. It followed an attack by the Leader of the Opposition on the probity and character of the Commonwealth Statistician which led the Statistician to make it quite clear publicly that he resented the attack and that there was no foundation for it. Subsequently Senator Georges and the honourable member for Lalor attacked the probity and character of the Commissioner of Taxation. These are no isolated events. When I heard of it I made inquiries from the Treasury. The’ basis of the allegation was that information was withheld and that this information, which was said to be very important, was a Master of Economics thesis by Mr Tilling of the Department of Labour and National Service. I inquired of the Treasury as to whether the Department had withheld it. I was informed as follows:

  1. As to the detail of what Mr Cameron said we had not, in Treasury, heard of any thesis prepared by Mr Tilling until 2 or 3 weeks ago when, quite informally, a report to the effect that we were supposed to have the thesis in our possession came to our attention. However, a check revealed that no such thesis was held in Treasury or had been seen by Treasury officers. Inquiries elicited the information that Mr Tilling is doing a thesis at Monash University but has not yet completed it. There has been, therefore, no thesis accepted for the degree of Master of Economics by Monash University although I understand there are working papers Mr Tilling has prepared in the course of working on his thesis. However, we have not seen them.
  2. Although in one sense this is a trivial matter it does bear on Treasury’s integrity and I have gone into detail in order to make the record quite clear. Mr Cameron has been misinformed on this particular question.
Dr Patterson:

– Who signed that?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It is signed by Mr J. O. Stone, the Deputy Secretary (Economic) of the Treasury, and it is dated 13 th October.

Mr Martin:

- Mr Speaker, in accordance with the Standing Orders I ask that the whole document be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Treasurer willing to table the document?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I table the document which has been quoted from.

page 3010

APPLICATIONS FOR PENSIONS

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– I wish to amplify an answer that I gave earlier. The honourable member for Oxley said that he had had no reply to a telegram he sent to me. I now have the file. I find he did send a telegram to me from Canberra on 2nd October. It was retransmitted on 3rd October. I was in Rockhampton. I replied by telegram through my Department on 3rd October. My Department has minuted the file: This telegram to Mr Hayden was phoned at 3.5 p.m. on 3rd October 1972’. It was sent from Rockhampton to Mr W. Hayden, M.P., 60a Limestone Street, Ipswich.

page 3010

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes, I do. During question time this morning the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) questioned a reference I made to the Australian Country Party and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in relation to the abolition of the wine tax. I seek permission to table the appropriate quote in a pamphlet, on the front of which Mr Anthony and Mr Petch are so delightfully portrayed, which contains the statement: ‘Abolition of the wine tax in its entirety is Country Party policy.’

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 3010

REDFERN: STATEMENTS IN TWELFTH MAN

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr COPE:

– I thank the House for its indulgence in granting me leave to make a statement which shall be brief and straight to the point. I refer to a book entitled

Twelfth Man’, written by a Don Whitington, a journalist well known to most honourable members and senators in this Parliament. I take strong exception to a particular section on page 143 of the book which states:

Until recent years Redfern was almost a dirty word in Sydney. It is the inner suburb to the south of the city proper, bordering such unlovely living areas as Surry Hills and Darlinghurst, ringed by factories, with substandard housing, substandard schools, poverty and depression, narrowshouldered houses in endless terraces, rooming houses, doss houses. It was peopled by thugs and thieves, pimps and prostitutes, gunmen and gangsters and decent hardworking artisans and unskilled labourers too poor to live anywhere else.

My attention was directed to this passage by a lifetime friend of mine and a resident of Redfern for a major portion of his life. His name is Sir William McKell, an exGovernorGeneral of Australia and exPremier of New South Wales. He and others whom I will mention have granted me permission to use their names. Sir William was very incensed that such a scurrilous and untruthful description should be made about Redfern, particularly coming from a person who has never lived in or been associated with Redfern. He went on to say that he and Lady McKell enjoyed their many years of residence in Redfern because of its people, who although not members of the affluent society, are true blue citizens.

I recall that on the occasion of the naming of McKell Place, a huge housing project in Redfern, Sir William broke down with emotion during his speech simply because it reminded him of his many years in Redfern among his numerous friends. My colleague the Honourable Pat Hills, MLA, who is the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales State Parliament and member for the State seat of Phillip which contains Redfern - and incidentally Pat was born and bred in Surry Hills which is a stone’s throw from Redfern - said that Whitington’s remarks were in poor taste, were totally exaggerated and could not be substantiated in regard to any of the past or present residents of Redfern. He went on to say that he was privileged to represent the people of Redfern in the State Parliament.

My friend Fred Green, an ex-MLA who represented Redfern for 18 years in the

State Parliament of New South Wales, a gentleman renowned for speaking his mind, said that if Mr Whitington had the guts he should come along to the Redfern Town Hall one evening or Redfern Park on a Sunday afternoon and voice his opinion about Redfern and its citizens and not lurk in one of the dark back alleys which he mentioned in his book to voice his views. The Mayor of South Sydney Council, Alderman Hartup and his 2 fellow councillors, Aldermen Robinson and Curtain who represent the Redfern ward in the Council, and other aldermen, all of whom have resided in the area for many, many years, consider the remarks as insulting and unworthy of any person professing to be a reputable journalist. Mr Ron Williams, born and bred in Redfern, as was his father before him, is the President of the Redfern RSL branch. He stated that if Mr Whitington had the courage he would accept an invitation to visit the Redfern RSL Club and tell the members whether any of the huge number of Redfern citizens who served in World War I and World War II were thugs; thieves, pimps, gunmen and gangsters.

Finally, I voice my own personal view that I or any of those people whom I have mentioned would not suggest for one moment that every person in Redfern is the perfect citizen. I have lived there for 44 years and in the depression years in particular saw some hard times in which everyone lent a hand to those more unfortunate than themselves. If a mother takes sick, the neighbours come in and help with the housework and take care of the children. I have on numerous occasions known of the breadwinner passing on and leaving a wife and children behind and then the friends and neighbours taking up a collection or holding a raffle to assist in paying the funeral expenses and also to provide some cash to help the family carry on. These are the people with whom I mix. In some ways sometimes some of them may appear to be rough and ready but I am proud to be one of them and would hazard a guess that people in many of the more affluent areas would like to have such friends and neighbours in times of stress. If Mr Whitington would care to apologise for his insulting and unsavoury description of Redfern, I offer to pay for the space in the local newspaper. If he refuses this offer I brand him as a journalist seeking to make money by insulting people with a pack of lies.

page 3012

FIRST AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

Mr SPEAKER:

– For the information of honourable members I present a summary report of proceedings of the first Australian parliamentary seminar organised by the Commonwealth of Australia and State branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and held at Parliament House, Canberra, from 11th to 16th September last

The seminar was attended by delegates from branches of the Association in the South East Asian and Pacific Region. From the comments of delegates it would appear that this inaugural seminar was very successful, not only as a seminar but also as an opportunity to further the objects of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association by establishing friendly contacts between members of our neighbouring Parliaments. On behalf of the Joint Presidents and the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth branch I should like to express appreciation to those honourable senators and members and other persons who participated in and contributed so ably to the success of the seminar. In particular, I desire to thank Senator G. S. Davidson and Mr E. N. Drury and Mr G. G. D. Scholes, members of the House of Representatives, who so completely functioned as a subcommittee to plan the arrangements for the seminar.

page 3012

SUGAR AGREEMENT 1969

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

– Pursuant to clause 8 of the Sugar Agreement 1969, I present the report on the operation of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for the year ended 30th June 1972, together with the Committee’s financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 3012

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-66, 1 present the seventh annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 3012

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO JAPAN AND KOREA

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan and Korea.

page 3012

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926-49 I present the report of the Auditor-General on the accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 3012

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the previsions of the Public Works Committee Act I present the report relating to the following proposed works:

Rehabilitation Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales

Patients and Staff Accommodation at Kingshome Rehabilitation Centre, Taringa, Queensland.

Outpatients Clinic, Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland

Commonwealth Office Block, Alice Springs, Northern Territory

Commonwealth Offices, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr KELLY:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KELLY:

– These are the last reports the Public Works Committee will present this year and represent the last of 3 years’ work. In 1970 the Committee presented 22 reports. It presented 18 in 1971 and 38 in 1972. This year has been by far the busiest year in the Committee’s history. The Committee has exceeded its previous performance in the number of reports printed by 13. There have been 75 reports and 180 meetings of the Committee during the last 3 years and the Committee has had referred to it and dealt with projects costing $407.8m. It is a very significant performance and something which ought to go on record. I would like to refer to the 3 reasons that have made this possible. The first has been the performance of the Committee members, and I refer to my colleagues in this House, the deputy chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) on this side of the House, and also Senator Poyser, Senator Jessop and Senator Webster. I think it is worth remarking that there has never been a division on Party lines in the Committee. On many occasions we have not agreed but never once has the Committee divided on Party lines.

I am certain that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) will be interested to hear that over the period there have been 10 visits to the Northern Territory and 39 meetings have been held there. This has placed a considerable burden in travelling time on Committee members and I compliment them for the way they have responded. On many occasions 1 am sure it would have been more convenient for them to have attended their own electorates. It has been a remarkable performance and Committee members have been called on to do far more than their duty would have required of them. The second reason why we have been able to do so well is the service we have received from our Secretary, Mr Morrie Adamson, who retires tomorrow, I think, from his position after 8 years’ service with the Committee. It has been a period of 8 years of dedicated and very competent service and I pay tribute to him for it.

The third reason why we have been able to do so well is the friendly and fruitful relationship we have with the Department of Works, the staff of which attend all our inquiries. The client departments vary almost with each inquiry but we have had a history of respectful, efficient and fruitful co-operation with the officers of the

Department of Works. I am grateful to them for their help. In closing I want particularly to thank again the members of the Committee. It has been a very interesting period of 3 years, and a very torrid last year. The Committee has acquitted itself nobly and I thank its members.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

– by leave- I want to support the remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who is the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. It has been a very hard period for the Committee, particularly in the last 12 months. I also pay a tribute to Mr Morrie Adamson, the Secretary of the Committee, who is leaving, as the Chairman has said. As a Committee we have worked very well together. Quite a lot of country has been covered, from New Guinea over to Perth and down to Hobart. We have always been good friends. We ‘ have not always agreed on certain aspects but, as the Chairman said, we have never divided on parly lines. It has always been left to the discretion of the individual.. In that way we have got through the work this year. Otherwise, we could not have done it. I thank the Chairman for - his kindness and thoughtfulness during our journeying all over Australia.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– by leaveAs the representative of the Australian Country Party on the Public Works Committee, I support the remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who is the Chairman of the Committee and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton), who is the Deputy Chairman of the Committee. I add my own appreciation of the co-operation that has been given by all members of the Committee in the work that we have had to do over the years. I do not want to repeat what has already been said. It has been a very strennuous year and the results have been achieved only with the close co-operation and tradition that have been built up over the years. The Committee has tried to play the role designed for it in the democratic process by allowing each side to express a view about public works to be undertaken by the Commonwealth Government.

Members of the Committee have been anxious to see that that part has been correctly played, even though at times the notice given has not been as long as we would have liked. I think we need to examine carefully the methods by which notification is given of our activities. Notification should be for as long a period as is reasonably practicable. It is not always easy to accomplish that end. My work on the Committee has been made much more pleasant and I believe much more effective, by the co-operation that has come from members of the Committee drawn from both sides of the House. It has been a pleasure to work with them. I also compliment the Chairman on his handling of the work. In recent times he has had a very difficult task. I thank the Secretary and staff for their dedicated work in enabling us to get through the number of references we have had to deal with this year.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave - I join with my colleagues on the Public Works Committee in paying tribute to officers of the Department of Works for their submissions, and to the retiring Secretary of the Committee and his staff. It has been a busy year, as other speakers have said. Perhaps a more appropriate time to discuss the past and future roles of the Committee would be after the Committee has presented its annual report, a matter which is at present receiving its consideration. It has been said that the Committee dealt with 35 major inquiries in a year and over a period of 3 years handled references involving a total expenditure of about $407m. It is apparent that such activities make very heavy inroads into the time and work of members of the Committee. Obviously changes are required. Honourable members will be aware that any project involving expenditure of over $750,000 has’ to be referred to the Public Works Committee. That limit may have to be raised to a more generous level, as the fust move. A second move may also be necessary. If work is to be pummelled through at the current rate more expertise should be made available to the Committee. It is interesting to note that the Public Works Committee at present may utilise expertise, but that has not been its habit. Far more advice will be required if the Committee is to keep up the pace in future.

Consideration will have to be given to needs inquiries. On a number of occasions the Committee has had no alternative but to approve works because the Government has left the proposals too late for an alternative to be designed. A needs inquiry could be taken earlier, perhaps at the time the matter is first referred to the Cabinet. In that way many difficulties which the Committee now encounters could be obviated. I believe that members of the Committee have demonstrated a unique capacity to work together on many controversial matters and have rendered a useful service to the Parliament.

page 3014

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

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

– I move:

That Government Business, Notice No. 1, be postponed to a later hour this day.

Some other closely allied Bills are to be dealt with and it was thought that it would suit the convenience of honourable members to delay dealing with Notice No. 1 until a later hour.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3014

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1972

Bill presented by Dr Forbes, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · Barker · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to implement further the Government’s continuing policy of providing planned assistance in the areas of greatest social need. It is directed to the needs of the chronically ill in nursing homes and to those people who are looking after aged chronically ill relatives in their private homes who otherwise would need to be admitted to a nursing home. The Bill implements measures contained in the Budget for the provision of further Commonwealth benefits for pensioners in nursing homes and for the provision of a new fund benefit for patients in nursing homes who contribute to a hospital benefits fund. It also introduces the new measure foreshadowed in the Budget to provide a domiciliary nursing care benefit for approved persons who provide professional nursing and other care for elderly relatives living with them.

The development of these measures was described in some detail in a statement made in the Senate by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) on 16th August last and also in a statement which I made to this House on 29th August. There is no need therefore to traverse these areas again. Suffice it to say that the Government regards the introduction of these new measures as a milestone in the development and extension of public responsibility at the Commonwealth level, for the chronically ill, especially those whose financial circumstances are such that the cost burden of their nursing care is often equal to or even greater than their whole income, the excess being met in the main by relatives. The scheme of new nursing home benefits is based on the fact that approximately 80 per cent of patients in nursing homes throughout Australia are pensioners enrolled in the pensioner medical service, nearly 40,000 people. These patients could reasonably be expected to contribute towards their maintenance three-quarters of the sum of the single rate of pension plus supplementary social services allowances. This means that the patient’s contribution would, on present rates of pension, be $18 per week, leaving $6 per week for personal needs.

The new Commonwealth benefit and the new fund benefit payable to contributors are fixed at a level designed to bridge the gap between the nursing home fees and the sum of the patient’s contribution and the present Commonwealth benefits. These benefits are $3.50 per day in respect of ordinary care nursing home patients and $6.50 per day in respect of intensive nursing care patients. It is not intended, however, that the new benefit should bridge the gap regardless of fees charged by the nursing home. To this end therefore the Bill provides 3 controls: Firstly, the scale of maximum new benefits necessary to bridge the gap I have referred to is based on a notional nursing home fee which has been fixed, after survey, to include approximately 70 per cent of all nursing home bed charges in each State; secondly, the levels of fees charged by each nursing heme are to be determined as a condition of registration and are not to be varied without prior approval; and, thirdly, fees are not to be supplemented by charges for extras’ which properly should be included in the basic fee.

The Government recognises that the new Commonwealth benefit and fund benefit will lead to pressure by many nursing homes for approval to charge fees at levels higher than those applying at 30th June last and accepts that there will be in the future genuine cost factors to support increases. The Bill therefore contains provisions allowing review of fees from time to time, and provides a right of appeal to the Minister against Departmental decisions on levels of fees. Before making his decision the Minister will receive a report from a Nursing Homes Fees Review Committee of Inquiry which is to be established in each State, lt is recognised too that the measures may tend to encourage more people to seek admission to nursing homes and this may not always be in the best social and medical interest of the patient. The Bill provides therefore for an admissions policy under which nursing home proprietors are obliged, as a condition of the approval of the nursing home, not to admit new patients without the prior approval of the Department. It is intended, however, that the primary basis of admission should continue to be the certificate as to the patient’s medical condition by the patient’s own doctor. The certificate will need to be supplemented by the endorsement of a medical practitioner employed in the Department of Health. Where necessary, there will be a process of consultation with the patient’s own doctor.

The Bill further provides that, in circumstances where it is not practicable to obtain prior approval for admission, approval may be given subsequently. It is intended too that a patient should be in need of a reasonable amount of nursing care to warrant admission to an approved nursing home, and experience has shown that this has most effect when supported as necessary by other professional services. In order that the measure will not also possibly have the effect of stimulating undesirable growth of nursing homes, the Bill gives the Department authority to refuse approval, for the purposes of Commonwealth and fund benefits, to new nursing homes, or to the expansion of existing homes. New nursing homes will, however, not be refused approval on these grounds if persons intending to build a new nursing home, or to acquire existing premises for conversion to a nursing home, seek and receive departmental approval in advance. The rate of development of nursing homes is, of course, primarily a State matter and the Government intends that there will be close consultation between the States and the Commonwealth at the official level on the matter of approvals of new nursing homes.

Other conditions, for the purpose of ensuring that the needs of patients are satisfactorily provided for, may also be imposed. It is not intended that State nursing homes should be subject to the various conditions referred to. The Bill provides that the nursing homes scheme is to come into effect on a date to be proclaimed - current intentions are to proclaim 1st January 1973 - and that all current approvals of nursing homes cease to have effect as at that date but will be replaced by new approvals which shall be subjectto the conditions referred to. The new approvals will specify the number of beds and the levels of fees approved, and any other conditions attaching to the approvals. No new patients are to be admitted without prior approval. However, a person refused admission to a nursing home by the Department has a right of appeal to the Minister. A breach of conditions could result in revocation of approval and proprietors also have the right of appeal to the Minister in relation to the conditions applicable to the approval or in the event of revocation. A new Commonwealth benefit is payable in respect of PMS pensioners to proprietors of approved nursing homes at the following rates:

Where approved daily fees are less than the total of present and new Commonwealth benefits plus the patient’s contribution -$18 per week or $2.55 per day - the new Commonwealth benefit is reduced accordingly. For example, if the approved gross fee for a pensioner patient in a particular New South Wales nursing home were $74 per week for an intensive care patient then the patient would contribute $18 and the Commonwealth $56. The Commonwealth benefit comprises the present intensive care benefit of $45.50 per week and the maximum additional benefit of $10.50 per week. If, however, the gross fee were $69 per week the additional Commonwealth benefit would be $5.50 instead of $10.50 per week.

Proprietors of nursing homes are to be required to keep such records as are necessary to ensure that the conditions of the approvals are being observed. Registered hospitals benefits organisations are to provide a nursing home fund benefit for contributors to a hospital benefit fund on a similar basis to and at the same rates as the new Commonwealth benefit for PMS pensioners.

Patients who are not PMS pensioners at the commencement of the scheme may become contributors without being subject to the normal waiting period provided that they join a hospital benefits fund within 2 months. Claims for the new nursing home fund benefit are not to operate to allow the organisations to transfer the contributors to the special account - the debit balance of which is met annually by the Commonwealth - but such a claim may be debited to the special account if the patient has been transferred to that account for other reasons.

Patients ceasing to be pensioners and becoming contributors to a hospital benefits fund within 2 months, shall, as is now the case with hospital benefits, be eligible for nursing home fund benefits, without being subject to the fund rules concerning a waiting period. The new nursing home fund benefits are to apply to persons eligible for benefits under the subsidised health benefits scheme, that is, unemployment and sickness beneficiaries, low-income families and migrants within 2 months of arrival in Australia.

The provisions concerning re-approval, and the application of conditions in respect of admissions, levels of fees and development of new or enlarged nursing homes, do not apply to prescribed nursing homes conducted by or on behalf of a State, and, where a non-State home, having regard to the type of patients and their circumstances, charges less than what would be an appropriate fee for the services provided, the home may be exempted from the provisions which might otherwise reduce the amount of the new Commonwealth or fund nursing home benefit payable.

I can assure the House that, in the administration of the admissions policy, no patient in a nursing home at the commencement of the scheme will be obliged to leave because of the criteria to be applied in respect of new admissions. Nor will any new prospective patient be refused admission without prior consultation between medical officers of the Department and the patient’s own doctor. The sole criterion applying to admissions is to be the well-being of the patient. Under the law approval must be given to the admission of a patient if the patient’s medical condition needs such nursing care as warrants his admission, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, the needs of the patient would be adequately and more suitably provided for in another institution and such other accommodation is available. Alternatively, if a patient who is over 65 years of age needs such nursing care as would warrant his admission to a nursing home, but it can be provided in the private home of a relative, then the relative may receive the new domiciliary nursing care benefit of $14 per week.

It cannot be doubted that in a number of cases of the admission of elderly patients to nursing homes it would be of social and medical advantage to them if they could remain in the environment of the private home with relatives able to look after them provided the professional nursing care needed is available. In many of such cases, however, financial considerations make this impracticable and the new benefit is designed to overcome the dilemma which faces relatives of patients in these circumstances. Accordingly the Bill provides that a person may apply to be an approved person for the purposes of the domiciliary nursing care benefit, where he cares for a relative in the private home which is the residence of the applicant and the patient.

The patient must be over the age of 65 years and, on the certificate of a doctor and nurse, must have a continuing need for nursing care, and is receiving that care. Relative’ includes a husband or wife - including a bona fide de facto relationship - a parent or grandparent, brother, sister, aunt or uncle, and step and foster relationships are included. In special circumstances other persons may be approved as if such a relationship existed. Approval will be given if the criteria are met, and if the patient’s medical condition is such that he could be admitted to a nursing home. The benefit may be payable in respect of 2 patients looked after by the one person. It is intended that the domiciliary nursing home scheme is to commence on 1st March 1973.

The introduction of the new nursing homes scheme, together with the new domiciliary nursing care benefit, is a further step forward in the development of Commonwealth responsibility in the geriatrics area which will prove equally as significant as the introduction in 1962 of the original nursing home benefits scheme which provides Commonwealth benefits for patients in approved nursing homes. That benefit continues, but in addition the Commonwealth, in respect of PMS pensioners, and the registered hospital benefits organisations in respect of patients insured for hospital benefits, will bridge the gap between nursing home charges and a reasonable contribution by patients towards their accommodation. The extent, however, to which the scheme will be successful, depends on the effectiveness of the fees and admissions policies in the legislation and the degree of co-operation from the nursing home proprietors in the operation of the scheme. I have no doubt that that co-operation will be readily given.

The cost to the Commonwealth of the new benefit for PMS pensioners in nursing homes is estimated at $9.1m for the current year and $21. 9m for a full year. The cost of the domiciliary nursing care benefit is estimated at $4m for the current year and $ 14.5m for a full year. The cost to registered hospital benefits organisations of the new nursing home fund benefit is to be met, at least for a time, from the reserves of the organisations, but at a later stage consideration will be given, when the level of hospital benefits contributions is under review, to including an clement for the payment of nursing home fund benefits. The estimated cost to the organisations for 1972-73 is $2.2m and $5.4m for a full year.

Other matters dealt with in the Bill include: Firstly, sub-section (2.) of section 19a is amended to include the new Woden Valley Hospital in the Australian Capital Territory, part of which is expected to open early in 1973, as a public hospital for the purposes of medical benefits, and to change the name of the Canberra Community Hospital by removing the word ‘Community’ to accord with ACT legislation. Secondly, 5 sets of regulations promulgated since October 1971 are repealed and the provisions of those regulations incorporated in the schedules to the National Health Act. The regulations known as National Health (Variation of Benefits) (Nos. 3 to 7) Regulations provided for variations in the scope of the medical services in respect of which medical benefits are payable and variations in the rates of Commonwealth and fund medical benefits payable in respect of the scheduled medical services. The regulations are being incorporated in the Act because the Act provides that whilst the schedules may be varied by regulations such regulations cease to have effect upon the expiration of IS sitting days of the House of Representatives after the anniversary of the gazettal of the regulations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The points made by the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) this afternoon are substantially the points which were made by him in this House a few weeks ago when he foreshadowed the proposals which are now embodied in the Bill before the House. The situation has not changed and nothing new has been brought forward in the Minister’s speech today to what he said earlier. I am about to duplicate that principle. Firstly, I commend the Government for, at least in this area, introducing a participatory scheme; that is, imposing on the nursing home organisations in Australia - private and public - whether they like it or not, a system of participatory controls.

Dr Klugman:

– Price controls.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes, effectively. I can well understand why the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) feels some alarm at the way in which the constitutional powers and lack of powers of a Commonwealth Government can be abused and can be used to apply a squeeze on people when, in fact, the Government is doing exactly that with this proposal. It is price controlling nursing homes. It is imposing a nursing homes participatory scheme. The nursing homes are required henceforth to adhere to certain scales of fees, otherwise, it is clear from one’s reading of the Bill, there will be fairly tough reprisals applied against the nonconformists. It has been applied in that area successfully and one would expect that it should be applied equally successfully in other areas where there are more astronomical cost increases which are being borne by the public, and largely among the public by the taxpayers. I refer, of course, to costs which are being covered by health insurance programmes.

I merely wish to raise some questions about the arrangement of the scheme. One thing that concerns me is just how successful the Government expects it can be in controlling admissions to nursing homes with its requirement of Commonwealth medical officer authorisation of entries. As the speech of the Minister representing the Minister for Health was related to the House, henceforth an application for admission can be based on the recommendation of a local private medical officer and, in some circumstances at least, the admission made. But the only procedure required from the Commonwealth medical officer is an authorisation of the decision of the local private medical officer. I feel that we need a little more direct involvement of the Commonwealth medical officer than this if the Government is to be successful in controlling the rate of admissions to nursing homes.

Members on this side of the House have said ad nauseam in this Parliament that it is alarming that in Australia there is such a high rate of institutionalising of aged people. Australia has one of the highest nursing home bed to population ratios in the world. Of course, this is a reflection of the very serious underdevelopment of domiciliary para-medical services in the community. Where these services have been developed, their development has tended to be lumpy; in other words, in some areas they have been well developed, while in other areas they have been poorly developed or not developed at all. Accordingly, there are only 2 extremes available for a large bulk of the aged population - that is, either they look after themselves at home and do that alone and independently or, if they cannot do that, be pushed into a nursing home complex. This is an unhappy arrangement.

The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has pointed in this House before, with some sense of concern, to the pecuniary interest that some medical practitioners have in private hospitals and nursing homes. This has been confirmed to me by people directly involved in these services. A nursing sister whom I know very well and who operates one of these nursing homes recently had an offer made to her by some medical practitioners who wanted to invest in the nursing home and develop a pecuniary interest. I think this is most unfortunate. What I am saying is that, although I am certain that the overwhelming majority of private medical practitioners can be trusted to give an accurate statement in their certificates in support of the admission of patients, nonetheless there clearly will be many cases where it would be justified for an authority such as the Commonwealth medical officer to make a survey of the case which is being recommended for entry. On my reading of the Bill and of the Act - if I am wrong I would appreciate correction - it is not obligatory for the Commonwealth medical officer to make any such check. He is merely required to authorise the certificate which the private doctor has provided in support of the admission of the patient. So, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he will give consideration to this point and answer me when I conclude my speech so that the point can be cleared up.

I have some criticism of the way in which it is proposed that private health insurance funds will provide nursing home benefits. I do not mind them providing nursing home benefits. But I think we should do a ‘ number of things to enlarge the provision of health welfare services in a way which will absorb or eat up the enormous amount of accumulated reserves which these funds have, and quite unreasonably have, given the fact that the money has been contributed for the provi sion of health services in the community. As I read the Act and as I understand the speech of the Minister, after a 6-month period these people will go on to the special account. So, effectively, the obligation of the private insurance funds in respect of a particular patient lasts for only 6 months. After 6 months, when the patient goes on to the special account, the Commonwealth meets the full cost of any bills. Of course, the patient continues to contribute but the money is subtracted from the total cost which is being met by the Commonwealth for the patient’s nursing home inmacy. But in the meantime the health insurance funds, for doing nothing at all really, will receive an allowance to cover the costs of their administration. As in the case of the subsidised health insurance scheme, their costs of administration are inflated and, if I remember correctly, the amount which is allowed for these costs will include even an amount for allocation to reserves.

In any event, the whole concept is wrong. Why should not the private health insurance funds, with these enormously inflated reserves, be required to continue meeting the full cost of nursing home benefits for these patients until these enormous reserves have run down to at least reasonable levels while this sort of system of health insurance continues? The amount that the health insurance funds are to put into the scheme is to be less than 19 per cent of the total cost. Quite clearly, their commitment is not a significant one. Given the fact that at present $148m is held in reserves, the proposal that the private health insurance funds should bear a cost of about $5m for a full year seems to suggest that it will be something like 30 years before we get a total run down of those reserves from this area of expenditure. 1 want to restate a criticism I made on behalf of the Opposition - it was endorsed by other Opposition members - which relates to the peculiar way in which the scale of benefits has been proposed under this Bill. There is no rational justification for what has been done. There is no public responsibility behind the principle which has been put forward and I shudder when I look at it. For instance, the maximum benefit payable in Victoria is to be $3.20 a day. However, the benefit to be provided in

States such as New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania is to be only $1.50 a day - less than half of the level which is proposed for Victoria. The explanation for this is very simple. What the Government has done has been to move in quickly with more money to prop up a very sensitive area of political pressure which has been affecting it recently. Somehow or other, the Government had to buy off the public and, at the same time, it had to do something which did not put too much pressure on the nursing homes. Instead of moving into the area of improved quality in the provision of geriatric, nursing home and domiciliary para-medical services and so on, what the Government has done has been to plug a bit more of the taxpayers’ money into the scheme to innate it even further, without doing anything at all to improve the efficiency and the quality of the services provided. What will happen here is that there will be enormous windfall gains to private nursing homes in Victoria.

In Victoria there is a clear market shortage of these facilities for the public. I am quite convinced that the market shortage would not exist with an adequate development of domiciliary para-medical services. But the provision of these is inadequate. Accordingly, as I mentioned before, we go from one extreme to the other where a person either looks after himself at home independently or goes into a nursing home. The latter is the case for too many people and because there is a shortage of these homes in Victoria these tremendous windfall gains are to be provided for people who, in many cases, are speculators. It is appalling to see in newspapers advertisments indicating that a 20 per cent return on investment in nursing home organisations can be gained. I am sure that this is not true for all nursing homes, but the very fact that one sees these statements frequently is an indication of just bow lush are the pickings in this area and how much the public has to bear the cost. It is always the taxpayer who has to pay.

These things have an element of deceit in them. The Government should explain more forcibly to members of the community that they as taxpayers are always pumping in this extra money. Let honourable members look at the amounts that are to be paid. Nearly $22m for a full year to prop up the private nursing homes is to be met by the taxpayers. Nearly another $6m is to come out of the health insurance funds’ reserves. That is fair enough, except that we have to bear in mind that that money has been provided by the public as a result of misrepresentation to the public, which believed that the money it provided was for health services. This is completely wrong. What we ought to have heard in the course of this debate from the Government was a clear definition of how the quality of nursing homes was to be improved. This alone would have been a significant achievement. We should have had a discussion about a requirement on nursing homes to provide such things as occupational therapists, dietitians, chiropodists and a range of people who are absolutely essential as support workers to assist aged people who are requiring nursing home attention. 1 know that many nursing homes could not employ these people on a full time basis, but they could make some arrangement to employ them on a sessional basis. Accordingly there ought to be a scale of grading so that different levels of reward provided at the public or taxpayers’ expense are paid into these nursing homes. That would be an important achievement.

There ought to be qualitative controls of the standard of buildings in which many aged people who go to nursing homes are housed. It has been said so many times here, yet nothing seems to be done effectively about it, that there are many depressing buildings housing aged people. There are many depressing buildings in which aged people are plumped into beds and left to sit there or sit around in chairs for most of the day to vegetate and deteriorate mentally and physically. This is an apalling situation. It seems that there is some rule or law in operation in this place that the more appalling are the situations disclosed here the more people get used to them and accordingly accept them as part of the norm in our system. But we cannot accept this because aged people are human beings and they have rights to self-respect and independence as human beings. They ought not to be treated in the terribly destructive way in which they are treated at the present time.

I would like the Minister to answer these queries which I have mentioned to him. I have already indicated in a previous debate in this House some of the things we would propose to do as a government. We would in fact build good quality nursing homes at various points in the community according to various types of plans. We would not be plagued by a recognisable and resented dull uniformity, but we would arrange for local authorities or voluntary agencies to staff these nursing homes. These homes would be directly related to the communities which they were aimed at serving. They would be not large complexes but small personal complexes related directly to the community for which they were established. In this way one would expect that costs could be kept down. In this way we could set a pacemaker effect for this sector of the economy - and it is an important sector. But this is not the most important area in which we are interested. We give our highest priority to the adequate development of domiciliary paramedical services so that aged people who want to stay at home and who are capable of doing so with the support of these services will be able to do so.

There is one final point which the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) has justifiably drawn to my attention. It relates to the domiciliary nursing care benefit which is being proposed by the Government. Just how effectively will this scheme be supervised? Given some of the criticisms I mentioned earlier of a tendency among some medical practitioners to be not as careful and as assiduous as they ought to be in discharging certain responsibilities in the community, how can we be sure that the issue of certificates will be done on a reasonably strict basis. I mean reasonably’ in the sense that it is accepted as a responsibility of the community to see that this provision is not abused and to see that certificates are not handed out to unjustifiable cases merely because the patient or the patient’s family happens to be a good friend of the doctor. It is not a nice thing to say, but on the other hand it can be substantiated. I served on the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits. That committee of inquiry met for nearly 2 years. The evidence we received convinced every one of us that there was a clear case of overprescribing by doctors in the community today. That over-prescribing costs money. It cost the taxpayers money. The cost of it must be met by the community. To the extent these things occur unnecessarily, there is irresponsibility occurring in the community, and accordingly there must be built in a more effective system of supervising the issue of certificates to attract domiciliary nursing care which for a full year will cost SI 5m. One would expect that this will be an escalating figure, given increasing numbers of people drawing on the benefit, and one would expect periodic increases in the rate of benefit proposed.

Dr Klugman:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

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

– If the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) would listen to the point I am making, I shall have recorded in Hansard his wish to speak to this Bill. An offer was made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) to the Government that if we brought this Bill on today he would grant leave to proceed to the second reading debate forthwith on the basis that there would be one speaker a side. We accepted the offer on that basis. Several members on my side of the House wished to speak to the Bill but they have been asked to withdraw their names from the list. They have agreed to do so. In the circumstances I hope that the honourable member for Prospect would concede that it would be basically unfair to grant him the privilege to speak now. I can understand his wish to speak to the Bill. I am wondering whether in the interests of the smooth running of the House he would content himself with allowing me to record now in Hansard his wish to speak to the Bill and whether in view of the circumstances he would forgo his right to speak and allow the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) a few moments to reply to the questions properly put by the honourable member for Oxley.

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the House about the procedure that is proposed for later in the debate on the Bill?

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

-Yes.

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will there be any discussion in the Committee stage? I would like to ask the Minister some questions on this Bill. I do not want to make a lengthy speech. I know that other members on this side want to ask the Minister some questions. I am happy to proceed on the basis suggested by the Leader of the House if the Minister is prepared to answer questions.

Mr Chipp:

– I cannot see any objection to the course proposed by the honourable member. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have an indication from the honourable member whether the questions he wishes to ask are not questions that can be put on notice.

Dr Klugman:

– They certainly can be put on notice, but the questions I propose to ask relate, for instance, to the fact that we are to grant $22m extra to private entrepreneurs in the nursing home field. What sort of justification does the Government have for paying double profits in Victoria compared with New South Wales?

Mr Chipp:

– Could I have an indication from the honourable gentleman how long he would wish to ask his questions?

Dr Klugman:

– Until I get satisfactory answers?

Mr Chipp:

– How long would it take to ask the questions?

Dr Klugman:

– I would like to ask questions on a few points.

Mr Jacobi:

– I would just like to add-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Jacobi:

– I can tell you that I am not very happy with the situation if we are to slam Bills through the House-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– This is unfortunately what happens. The Chair allowed indulgence to the honourable member for Prospect and the Leader of the House in an endeavour to try to expedite matters. This produces a state of confusion because other members now want to speak. The only question before the Chair officially, of course, is ‘That this Bill be now read a second time’. In the circumstances I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take much time on this because I realise that to some extent-

Motion (By Mr Giles) proposed: That the question be now put

Dr Klugman:

– Are we to pass the expenditure of an extra $35m of taxpayers’ money without honourable members being allowed to speak?

Mr Hayden:

– Before a division is called I would like to make an explanation to the House. I have explained this to my colleagues and I tried to do it before. There was a meeting of the Executive of the Australian Labor Party this morning. As a result of discussions there about the proceedings in the House this week, decisions were made on a number of Bills including this one. Given the fact that it says nothing that has not been said already and debated quite thoroughly in this House, it was decided that after the Minister’s speech I would reply and that, as far as the Opposition was concerned, the Bill could then be passed. If the Government proposed that there should be a debate we would respond in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he wants to have all the social welfare legislation passed through the Parliament as quickly as possible. If there is any delay it will not be our fault. I conveyed that undertaking to the Government. What I did was done in good faith for the Party as a result of an Executive decision. I have to support that decision of the Executive.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original 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.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · Barker · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

In view of the events that have taken place I would like to take the opportunity on the third reading of this Bill to attempt to answer the questions raised by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) who, as my colleague the Leader of the House (Mr Chipp) has said, is perfectly entitled to ask questions about the Government’s intentions. As the honourable member knows, this matter is not within my ministerial responsibility. I will convey these questions to the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and ask him to reply in detail in writing. But I will have a stab at the matters raised by the honourable member for Oxley. He has referred to the fact that the admission policy will be based primarily on a certificate from the patient’s own doctor. I do not believe that the construction he puts on this is justified. He has suggested that there will be no real control over admissions by the Department of Health: That is incorrect. I said in my second reading speech that one of the 2 fundamental elements in the success of this scheme is control over admissions.

A great deal of experience has been built up by the Department ever since the intensive care benefit was introduced. There is a well developed procedure by which the patient’s own medical practitioner signs a certificate which is then considered by a departmental medical officer. After that consultations take place with the patient’s own doctor and then a decision is made by the departmental medical officer. It is the intention of the Department gradually, over a period of time, to ensure that a proper admissions policy is folowed. But for the reasons the honourable gentleman pointed out, there are areas in which, in the individual situation of a patient, there is no other alternative to a nursing home. This is one of the things that puts the pressure on a patient’s doctor in signing the certificate with the best will in the world.

As honourable members are aware, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has outlined proposals for increasing the amount of hostel accommodation in the community. This will grow over a period of time and it will become more and more possible to make a decision solely on the basis that the patient is in need of and requires nursing home care. I believe that the honourable member for Oxley is wrong when he says that after a 6 months’ period the patient will be transferred to the special account. The advice given to me is that, although it is true with respect to a person in hospital, it is not correct in relation to a resident of a nursing home and it is not intended that it should be. The honourable member referred to the situation in Victoria. If we are adequately to protect the patients we must take account of the fees ruling at the time. This is the only way we could do it in a situation in which fees in Victoria are a good deal higher than they are anywhere else. One could give a number of explanations as to why this is so in Victoria. I will not go into that at this stage. If the reason given by the honourable gentleman is correct, that in Victoria they are charging what the market will bear, this will obviously be caught up with in the process of time in relation to applications by nursing homes in Victoria for fee increases. There will be an independent body to advise the Government whether fee increases are justified. If what the honourable gentleman says is true, obviously fee increases will not be justified in those situations.

Mr Hayden:

– Who would be on that body?

Dr FORBES:

– I cannot answer that. I will ask the Minister to do so. As I said in my second reading speech, there will be one for each State. The honourable member raised the question of standards of nursing homes. I assure him that it has been the intention of the Department of Health and the Government at every stage in which there has been an improvement in nursing home benefits by the introduction of intensive care benefits or by the other changes that have been made, to create a situation in which the quality of care provided can be improved. The honourable member may have noticed that in my second reading speech I referred to the fact that the Bill gives power to create conditions of any sort when granting approval to nursing homes. This is precisely what it is directed to - a steady practical improvement of standards wherever that is possible.

The final point made by the honourable gentleman was in relation to supervision of the domiciliary benefit. What I had to say about supervision by the department of admissions to nursing homes applies equally - perhaps even more so - to the domiciliary benefit, because the consideration that I raised earlier in respect of admissions to nursing homes where the patient has nowhere else to go does not apply in that case.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise on a point of order. For whatever it is worth, I want to record that I am shocked by the behaviour of both sides.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3024

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Sir REGINALD SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Air Navigation (Charges) Act imposes charges on the operators of aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airway facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services provided, operated and maintained by the Commonwealth, and the purpose of this Bill is to increase the rates of air navigation charges, to introduce charges for airline training flights, and to make other desirable changes in the provisions of the Act. In 1971-72, the estimated cost of operating and maintaining airport, airway and meteorological facilities and services used by civil aviation operators amounted to some $113m. Revenue received by the Department of Civil Aviation in respect of the use of these facilities was approximately S33m, $23m coming from air navigation charges and $10m from airport commercial development, rentals and other miscellaneous sources. In addition, the Department of Customs and Excise collected about $1 9m in aviation fuel taxes.

As is usual at this time each year, the Government has given consideration to the level of air navigation charges, having regard for the revenue and expenditure position which I have just mentioned and the economic circumstances in the air transport industry. The rates of charges were last increased as from 1st January 1971, but the operators of heavy jet aircraft recently incurred higher charges when concessions applied to these types under the provisions of paragraph 7 (3) of the First Schedule to the Act were removed because the airport facilities now available do not justify their continuation. The Government is aware that the civil aviation industry has experienced some problems in recent times, with a slowing down of traffic growth and rising costs making it difficult to maintain profitability. The aircraft operators have all advocated most strongly that no changes be made in the charges which they have to pay for the use of Commonwealth civil aviation airport and airway facilities. The cost of these facilities, however, continues to rise year by year, and the Government has a clear responsibility to see that gradual but reasonable progress is made towards the recovery of those costs from the users of the facilities.

In previous years, increases in air navigation charges approved by the Parliament have generally been at the rate of 10 per cent. Although the charges were not changed last year, the Government has taken into account the factors I have mentioned earlier and has concluded that an average increase of only about 5 per cent should be applicable to the rates of charges payable by airline operators with effect from 1st December 1972. It has also decided that the economic state of the domestic general aviation industry does not warrant any increase in the charges payable for light aircraft used in charter, aerial work and private operations, and that some reduction in the charges applicable to ultra-light aircraft would be appropriate. These proposals will be made effective by the new scale of charges included in clause 7 of the Bill. This single scale replaces the 2 existing charging scales applicable to domestic and international aircraft, and it introduces metric weights into the Act. Apart from the first 2 weight brackets, it is a smooth type of scale which avoids the sudden increase in charges that have been a feature of the scales used in the charging system previously.

The amendments incorporated in clauses 5 and 8 are designed to introduce charges for air crew training flights operated by the airlines. The Government recognises the vital part which crew training plays in maintaining Australia’s outstanding safety record in civil aviation, and it was only after very careful consideration that a decision was taken to charge for the use of Commonwealth facilities on training flights. The total annual costs of the special jet training aerodrome at Avalon in

Victoria alone amount to about Sim, and the airlines also use other Commonwealth aerodromes and facilities in their crew training activities. The modest charges now proposed will recover some of these costs without imposing an unacceptable burden on the airlines. Two types of charge are proposed - one for training flights which are operated between airports, at least one of which is owned by the Commonwealth, and the other for training flights confined to a single Commonwealth airport.

The amendments proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 6 are minor in nature and are intended to improve the relevant provisions in the Act and to avoid a loss of revenue in special and unusual circumstances. Clause 9 adds further routes to the Table of Flights included in the Act and deletes and amends other routes already in that Table. These changes are deemed to be necessary in the light of developments in the provision of facilities and the present operating patterns of the airlines. Clause 10 amends the refund provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act, principally so that double-charging will not occur when airline training flights are operated with aircraft for which charges have been paid under that Schedule. Clause U will facilitate the specification of aircraft weights in the Commonwealth Gazette in metric units with effect from 1st December, when the proposed new rates of charges become effective. 1 commend the Bill.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Speaker, I seek leave to proceed with the second reading debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– This is a routine Bill. A similar measure is introduced each year in the Budget session and is disposed of shortly afterwards. This Bill has already been through the Senate where members of the Opposition did not oppose it. We in this House likewise will not oppose it. Basically this Bill increases air navigation charges by 5 per cent, which will return the Government or the Consolidated Revenue Fund between 1st January 1973 and 30th June 1973 a total of $800,000. The Bill also markes provision for an adjustment of general aviation charges. Fortunately this represents a downward turn which we on this side welcome because we know that general aviation has been subjected to quite considerable costs over the years and any relief that can be extended should be granted. For this reason alone we support the Bill. The new charge on training flights should have been introduced by the Government some considerable time ago and for that reason we do not oppose the proposition.

I draw the attention of the Minister for National Development (Sir Reginald Swartz) to several factors. Firstly, there was no increase in air navigation charges last year. They remained unchanged for the year ended 1970-71. It is difficult tor me to understand why they were not increased in that year, having in mind the profits that are being made by airline operators and these words in the Minister’s second reading speech:

The Government is aware that the civil aviation industry has experienced some problems in recent times, with a slowing down of traffic growth and rising costs making it difficult to maintain profitability.

All I draw the Minister’s attention to is the fact that when Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd attempted to take over Ansett Transport Industries Ltd one of the precautionary and defensive measures taken by the chairman of Ansett Transport Industries was to increase the dividend from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. I would be grateful if the Minister in his reply would explain how it is so difficult to maintain profitability when this airline was able to increase its dividend payment by 50 per cent. Are we now reducing costs by not having an annual increase of 10 per cent as was agreed to in, I think, 1963. or prior to that? As I pointed out a moment ago, last year there was no increase and this year the 10 per cent is cut in half.

I am afraid that my arithmetic and the Minister’s do not coincide. I tried to reconcile my figures on expenditure which I have obtained from the research section of the Parliamentary Library with the Minister’s expenditure figure of $11 3m. The best that I can make out of the situation is an expenditure of $93,708,000 with a revenue of $52,483,000 which includes receipts from aviation fuel tax which I believe ure entitled to be treated as revenue. This leaves the situation whereby civil aviation was subsidised to the tune of $41,225,000 or, in simple terms, this Government subsidised the travel of every passenger on aircraft in Australia during 1971-72 to the extent of $5 per passenger per flight. When one compares that treatment of aviation with that given to other types of transport it is a little difficult to understand the way that this Government approaches those other forms of transport.

I also want to raise a point about the report of the government working group. We recall very vividly that some 2 years ago the Government appointed a committee which it called a government working group to inquire into the air navigation charges on international operators. That report was presented to the Minister in May 1971 - 18 months ago. What has happened to the report? Is the Department of Civil Aviation entitled to levy the present charges on international operators plus the 5 per cent which this Bill provides for? I think it is up to the Government to present reports such as this to the Parliament so that all honourable members can be made aware of just what is happening, what charges are being levied and whether they are fair and reasonable or unfair and unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will table that report because it is something that honourable members should be well and truly acquainted with.

The other point I want to deal with is, as I mentioned a moment ago, the manner in which this Government subsidises civil aviation in Australia in comparison with other forms of transport. In 1971-72 there were 6,783,000 passenger journeys in Australia, 479,000 in New Guinea and 704;000 international flights, making a total of 7,966,000 passenger journeys. This cost, as I said a moment ago, of $41m by way of subsidy, was the difference between income and expenditure on civil aviation, which means - and I repeat this because I think it is worth repeating - that every person who made a flight on an aircraft was subsidised by the Government to the extent of S5. We should consider that amount against the amount that the Commonwealth Government has made available to the States by way of grants for railways. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), at the recent opening of the Whyalla-Port Augusta railway said that between 1951-52 and 1971-72 the Com monwealth had made available to the States $205m for the, development of railways by way of grants and loans for standardisation and S40m for other rail projects. During this same period the Commonwealth made $2,063,667,000 available to the States for roads.

I will not go back 20 years in the case of civil aviation. I will deal only with the last 10 years. From 1962-63 to the present time, expenditure on civil aviation - and this does not include administrative charges but includes just the actual running of civil aviation operations themselves - was $589,437,000 and revenue was $241,677,000. In other words, there was a deficit - or a subsidy; call it what you like, but I think it could be, more aptly classified as a subsidy- of $347,760,000. 1 want to take this point just a little further, if I may. I want to draw attention to tha need for this Government to apply the same type of assistance and subsidy to all forms of transport. I have shown the House what has been allocated for roads and the huge subsidy that is paid out so far as air travel is concerned. When we compare, the figure of just on 8,000,000 passenger flights in one year with the 948,000,000 people who travelled by public transport in just the 6 capital cities of Australia in the year 1970-71 and who received no subsidy or assistance whatsoever from this Government, it is time, that something was done about this aspect of transportation. The Government should provide Commonwealth assistance to upgrade public transport and put people who travel by that system on a par with air passengers who receive this substantial subsidy of $5 per flight.

If we go back over the years we find that the subsidy on many occasions has been as high as $10 per passenger per flight. If it is good enough for this Government to subsidise air travel so heavily it is up to this Parliament to make similar types of grants to upgrade public transport. By making rail, bus and tram travel more attractive to the travelling public the Government will in turn reduce the huge expenditure that is so necessary today to be spent on roads. I bring these few facts to the attention of the Minister for National Development. I think it is important so far as this Parliament is concerned that we take these facts into consideration when we are passing legislation such as this. In fact, I believe that the 5 per cent increase in the rate of air navigation charges should be at least 10 per cent. Also it should have been imposed last year because the industry is a luxury industry which can afford to pay such an increase and these types of charges. In fact, as I have already mentioned, the subsidies which have been paid over the years would have been more than enough to have given considerable assistance to public trans port - either rail, bus or tram transport - and this would have assisted considerably in reducing the huge expenditure on roads. The Opposition does not oppose the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3027

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1971-72

statement of expenditure

In Committee

Statement - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I do not wish to speak at length on this statement, because it is a formal matter really. It is simply a wind-up of the accounts for the year ended June 1972, basically concerning amounts not foreseen in the Budget but for which the general provision of the Treasurer’s Advance was made. Most of it is history now. In view of the fact that this Parliament is in its last days I do not propose to say anything further although I believe the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) wishes to say something on this matter.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I want to pass a few remarks about one aspect of the Advance to the Treasurer and in doing so make a comment about the magnitude of Australian government operations and the tremendous burden that falls on a Minister at the level of the Treasurer who has to disburse these funds though, I presume, not solely on his own decision but subject to the approval of that mysterious empire, the Treasury. It is important that some machinery be established to enable Parliament to make a proper scrutiny of these appropriations so that everybody associated with government may know how ubiquitous the Treasury official and the Treasury edict are. I want to refer to the citizen forces. There is a minute amount shownas having been appropriated for the Citizen Air Force. One of the pities of the last few years has been the way the Citizen Air Force, the Citizen Military Forces and the Citizen Naval Force have been more or less written out of the defence system. This is an area in which the country could make a great advance towards fulfilling its defence needs economically.

The particular reference to the Citizen Air Force involves the small amount of $5,546 but nobody can tell what that was for. Nobody would worry unduly what it was spent on. Some years ago the Citizen Air Force was grounded. I do not know whether any members of it fly any more but my understanding is that none of them do. This brings me to a discussion of the citizen forces in general and their relationship to the defence forces.Ibelieve that there should be another department, particularly in respect of the Army, to enable the citizen defence forces to develop into a corps of their own. While it is true that in respect of the naval forces there has been a long tradition of having a reserve of serving sailors in themerchant marine being serving sailors inthe Navy. People who were interested in the Citizen Naval Force managed to get into it, but generally speaking the Citizen Naval Force is fairly small. The Citizen Air Force is small. However, the Citizen Military Forces are a very important element of the Australian defence forces.

One of the serious errors in our defence planning of the last few years and particularly in the year under review has been the failure to appreciate what citizens can do in their amateur part time wayas part of the defence forces. One has only toexamine what happens in other parts of the world or what has happened on occasions in Australia to see the great human resources that areleft lying idle because we refuse to recognise this fact. In the United States of America, for instance, the citizen air force, the National Air

Guard, flies jet aud transport aircraft and was used to fly to and from Vietnam and did so just as effectively as anybody else. They run armoured forces. In Australia until about 1960 the citizen forces operated equipment such as Centurion tanks but they do very little of it any more. In the Navy there has been a move back to naval personnel of the reserve handling craft on their own account and I hope that in our defence planning we are coming to realise that the tremendous resources of the community that are available in both manpower and industrial reserves should be integrated with the Services. I did not believe originally, but I do now having studied it over the years, that we have made a serious error in the complete integration of the regular and the citizen forces. This is not to say that there should be a first class and a second class citizenry in the Army but the fact is that this integration reduces the general clement of self-reliance in the Citizen Military Forces.

Because a citizen operates in these forces on a part time basis and has a special relationship to the community, and because he is in such a totally different position to the regular servicemen, he needs to be treated differently. It is my belief that the citizen forces are the great reservoir of recruitment for the armed forces which has been ignored. In discussions in this place, whether at question time or during debates on defence, reference is made to the Army having so many men. But it is just the regular servicemen who are counted.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I point out to the honourable member for Wills that when he spoke about the Citizen Air Force and the expenditure in relation to it he was within the bounds of the debate, as too were certain comments emphasising that point. The amount shown in the statement refers only to the expenditure for the previous financial year under the headings shown and have no relation to future expenditure. The remarks the honourable member is now making are more of a projected nature and are not related to the particular item of expenditure which is before the Committee at the moment.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am sorry if I did not make myself clear with my normal exceptional clarity. What I have said is an expression of regret at the failure to have recognised and done something about these things in the past. The whole burden of my complaint is that in the last 10 or eleven years, this year being an exemplar, we have written the citizen forces more and more out of the system and this is a serious error. Item 602 refers to the recruiting campaign and I could relate my remarks to it but I am certain that when considering the Army we have ignored the resources available within the community, both in terms of personnel and industrial resources, which could sustain the regular services. I take this opportunity to pass these remarks because last week in the debate on the Defence estimates the machinery opposite rolled on and prevented me from doing so then. However, with your assistance, Mr Chairman, and your tolerant attitude in these matters - you are exceptionally tolerant sometimes - I have managed to get my views on the record on this occasion. I regret the attitude that is taken towards the Citizen Military Forces which, whilst they have not been buried, are still the Cinderella of the Services.

Motion (by Mr Garland) agreed to:

That the following resolution be reported to the House: The Committee agrees with the statement for the year 1971-72 of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1969.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3028

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 October (vide page 2386), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Restrictive Trade Practices Bill seeks to amend Part XII of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act dealing with overseas cargo shipping. This should have been an amendment of major importance but in reality is only a very minor amendment displaying very clearly how the Government is allowing Australian primary producers, manufacturers, exporters and importers as a whole to remain at the mercy of the overseas shipping conferences which have plagued Australia’s trade for many years. The legislation should have gone further to ensure that the Australian Shippers Council would act in the national interest as a statutory body, established by and reporting to the Parliament. The Council should be given a greater variety of powers in its negotiations; for example, it should have the power to call tenders in its negotiations with shipowners and to provide that no representatives of companies which are owned and controlled outside Australia are on the Council. These are the complaints with which we are concerned at this stage. We believe that the amendment to the legislation introduced at this late stage of the Parliament is insignificant and is brought in without any attempt to strengthen the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It is really a paper tiger in the true sense of the expression because it contains no provision to protect Australia’s imports and exports. To illustrate what is involved, I point out to honourable members that in the last 10 years ended 1970-71 we paid out $3, 169m as freight on imports. To that sum can be added another $447m for 1971-72. In all probability, the freight on exports would double those figures.

Honourable members will appreciate the real position in the light of those figures. I have been unable to ascertain the freight paid on exports but I think it is fair and reasonable to assume that it is approximately equal to the freight paid on imports. In the last financial year alone, freight represented about S900m. For the 10-year period the freight paid on imports and exports would approach $6,000m or $7,000m The determination of the sums to be paid is in the hands of overseas shipowners, with only 4 Australian ships participating in the trade. That must convey to honourable members the importance and significance of this Bill and the need to do something positive about strengthening the principal Act.

I would like to include also in my speech for the benefit of honourable members some figures relating to trade over the last 12 months. In 1971-72 imports were valued at $4,008,000 and amounted to 26,479,000 freight tons. Exports were valued at S4,896m and totalled 102.8 million freight tons. Only 1.6 of Australia’s total imports and .58 per cent of our total exports were carried in Australian ships. This legislation should be designed so that we have more control and a greater say in what is taking place. This measure still does not give us complete control. Instead of establishing about 19 different shippers’ councils, the best that could be set up under the original legislation was 5. They are now to go out of existence and there is to be one Australian Shippers Council. It is to conduct negotiations with the Conference lines to determine the freights to be paid and the conditions under which Australia’s products will be carried.

At least this Bill is a step in the right direction inasmuch as facilities will be provided for additional research. It will be a much larger organisation than previously. This represents an improvement but we will fall far short of our legislative needs. Strengthening is needed to ensure that we have positive control over our trade. I remind honourable members how freights have been increased in the last couple of years and the number of times that the shipowners have made excessive demands. I cannot understand the reasons. The shipowners regularly ask for a 25 per cent increase in freights and they are cut back to an increase of about 15 per cent. I am wondering whether it is another example of. the old story of the little boy who wanted 10 cents to spend so he asked for $1. He was satisfied with what he got because he wanted only 10c. I am wondering whether that principle applies to the shipowners.

Over the years the shipping conferences have been well and truly able to put it over the Government in gaining freight increases. In the light of general cost of living increases, not only in Australia but also overseas, the freight increases do not appear to be justified. The shipowners appear to use their bargaining power to impose their conditions. They demand certain freight increases. If the Australian producers do not like to meet the increases they have to find alternative means of transport.

These exorbitant increases have been imposed for many years. Only when the real competition is introduced are the shipping lines forced to minimise the increases. In the Australia to the United States trade where there is an open conference - anyone can be in it - there are smaller increases in freight charges than in respect of the Australia to Europe Conference. In respect of the northbound conference there has been no real competition until recently. I will deal more fully with that in a moment. Coming back to my original point I will give a couple of examples where the conferences have demanded increases. In April-September 1970 on the United Kingdom-Europe trade the conference sought an increase of Hi per cent over the 1970-71 rates. The shippers asked for a standstill. The conference made a final offer of 4 per cent for wool and 10 per cent for other cargoes except fresh fruit and close weight. The rates were not agreed to by the shipper body but increases of 4 per cent and 10 per cent were the basis of contracts signed by the shippers.

Our understanding of the principal Act is that there has to be agreement on the freight rates that are to be imposed, and that the Minister has certain powers with which to require shipowners to produce evidence and to justify the actions they have taken, the increases they have proposed to introduce. In this instance I know of no evidence that the Minister has carried out any sort of inquiry to justify the increases. The conference has imposed its will on the Australian producers. I have had a document prepared for me by the Library Legislative Research Service. It gives details of the trade to the United Kingdom, the east coast of the United States, the east coast of Canada, Singapore and West Malaysia. In each case the shipowner has asked for an exorbitant increase. To some degree the demands have been broken down but in many cases the shipowners have imposed their will on the Australian producers. We believe that there should be joint agreement in arriving at freight rates. If need be an arbitrator could be employed to determine the extent of any increase. It should not simply be a matter of the will of the shipping lines. Numerous complaints have been made year after year in the reports of the bodies set up by the Government to handle the various sections of our production and trade. Let us take, for example, the annual report of the Australian Dried Fruit Control Board for 1971-72. The Board states: . . in the opinion of the Board the establishment of an Australian shippers council along the lines proposed will not improve the position previously obtaining unless the Act is further amended requiring all overseas shipping Interests to_ submit to the Australian Parliament or the Minister or independent nominated bodies, all relevant information for approval or otherwise of increases proposed in the rates of freight for tha carriage of Australian exports to overseas markets.

This is what one of the boards created by the Government thinks of the legislation which we are debating today. It shares our view. We think it is a paper tiger and so does that Board. I think it is entitled to complain about this state of affairs, bearing in mind the increases that have occurred. The report continues:

For 1972 the rates of freight for exports of Australian dried fruits to overseas markets were increased by the following amounts: - United Kingdom, Continent and Ireland 1S.7S per cent plus 8.S7 per cent which equals 24.32 per cent; Canada - East Coast, 25 per cent plus 6.32 per cent which equals 31.32 per cent; Canada - West Coast, 7.5 per cent plus 6.32 per cent which equals 13.82 per cent; New Zealand 7.5 per cent and other markets 25 per cent.

On total exports from the 1972 season of Australian dried fruits of approximately 85,000 tons, the cumulative increase in freight rates will be approximately $A500,000.

This is what Australian industries have to contend with. As the industries have complained the Federal Government has not been prepared to implement the Board’s recommendation. This Board has been making numerous recommendations to the Government over the years to improve the legislation which is now before us, at least to give them some protection against the conference lines. I wonder whether it is because the Government now has a ‘window’ on four routes in 3 conference lines, as the former Minister for Trade and Industry, Sir John McEwen, referred to it when the Government announced the decision in 1968 to purchase the ‘Australian Endeavour’ for the Australia to Europe trade.

Members on this side of the House cannot see any evidence of this window on the conference lines. We cannot get any information from the Government. It is all top secret and the Government is not prepared to make any information available to honourable members. I do not know what the Minister knows about it, or whether it is worth knowing. But at least we on this side of the House cannot get any information on this window into the conferences. As far as we are concerned we are still satisfied that the conference lines are continuing to rape Australian primary producers and manufacturers.

Similar statements to the one 1 read out concerning the dried fruits industry can be found in the Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Australian Meat Board. The same story appears; freight rates have been increased on Australian exports of beef. I quote from that report:

Freight rates on meat cargoes to North America were increased by 25 per cent from September, 1971, despite the opposition of the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council which questioned the justification for an increase of that magnitude. An important area of disagreement was that a financial exercise prepared by, a firm of accountants appointed by the conference serving the East Coast U.S.A. trade reflected the voyage of vessels with up to SO per cent vacant space.

This is one of the major things that is happening today. There is obvious overcapacity in a number of conferences and the Australian trader has to meet the cost of this over tonnaging. The shipping companies have no real concern for the Australian primary producer, as I shall show later on. All the shipping companies are interested in are freight rates. If there is any over tonnaging the primary producer has to pay for it. Australian traders must pay for that over tonnaging. It is time that legislation was introduced to make provision to protect us. As the extract which I just read from the 1972 annual report of the Australian Meat Board shows, there is roughly a 50 per cent over tonnaging on ships travelling to Australia or from Australia to America; 50 per cent of their cargo space is not occupied. Yet Australian primary producers are required to pay the costs of this practice.

Another angle is that the conference lines are interested in the lucrative runs only. They are not prepared to give any assistance to Australian trade. I refer once again to the Australian Apple and Pear Board Annual Report 1971-72. That report draws attention to the manner in which their freight rates have been increased. I do not want to take up too much time but there is one interesting section of the report in which attention is drawn to the fact that the shipping conferences are not prepared to make ships available. I refer to page 7 of that report, which states:

Freight Rates (a) Britain/Europe. With the expiration of a 3 year shipping agreement between the Board and the Australia to Europe Conference, it became necessary to negotiate new arrangements for 1972. At the outset the Conference advised that it was no longer interested in providing a Conference service for fruit because of the special problems involved amd suggestions were made that future arrangements should be developed with those owners still interested in the trade.

My understanding of the conference arrangement is that this is one of its responsibilities; it has to provide the necessary ships to handle Australia’s trade, lt is uneconomical at times for the conference to provide these ships and, for this reason, the freight rates under the conference are so high. We have a guaranteed service. We have been told time and time again by Government members defending the conferences and by the conferences themselves, that Australia has a guaranteed service from the conference line ships. I think you could write after that - subject to profitability. When one particular route is not profitable to the conference lines, they want to get out of it as quickly as they can. This is an indication of where the conference lines are prepared to go.

It can be safely said that October of this year was really a black month for Australian trade because in this period shipping freights on almost every conference route have increased by between 4 and 15 per cent. These are increases that are additional to increases gained earlier in the year. There are obvious anomalies in the whole system. For example, in the north bound conference line in the last 12 months increases have been to the tune of 38 per cent but now competition has been brought into it. A competitor, the Orient Overseas Line, OOL, tried to join the conference. I do not have any great sympathy for this Line because it wanted to take part in the split up of the spoils of Australian trade. When it could not join the conference line, it turned nasty and provided some competition by reducing freight rates by 10 per cent.

The interesting part of all this is that quite a considerable number of Australia’s export groups has refrained from signing the contract. I have a copy of the contract here. It clearly states that the export groups must sign the contract, continue to trade with the conference line and not ship any of their produce with any competitor. If they do any of those things after signing the contract, including shipping their goods with another shipping line - in this case LOL - a 10 per cent surcharge will be imposed on them. They will have to pay a different rate altogether. This is a case where, in my opinion, penalties are being imposed by the conference line because of competition and yet the Government and the Minister for Trade and Industry are not prepared to do anything about it.

As far as I am concerned, one of the disappointing features is the fact that there are 3 groups which have signed the agreements. They are the Australian Dairy Board, the Metal and Mineral Shippers Association and the Cotton Exporters Association. But what is the real position with the Australian Dairy Board? It will pay in the vicinity of $300,000 to $400,000 more by way of freights per annum by signing up with the conference than it would by dealing with the independent operator. In 1971-72 the dairying industry as a whole received $39,882,000 by way of bounty from the Government so what does it have to worry about? It can go ahead and pay the additional freight charges because the increase will be made up by way of subsidy and bounty from the Government. I cite this information from the answer to a question on notice which I asked on 31st May this year. The answer sets out the amounts of subsidies and bounties which are paid by this Government

Other boards have refused to sign up with the northbound conference. The savings to these boards will be in excess of $lm a year. At least they have had the sense not to sign up with the northbound conference. They will remain independent to use the facilities which are available to them through this independent operator. I repeat, I have no sympathy or regard for independent operators who would have taken part in the chopping up of Australian primary and secondary industry exports if they could have entered the conference. If a competitor is offering, at least let us avail ourselves of the opportunity of getting lower freight rates. About 6 years ago a Jewish shipping company moved into the trade and was successful in countering attempts by the Australia to America conference line to increase freight charges by about 35 per cent. Because it provided competition it was able to stop the Conference from proceeding with the proposed increase.

There are many other aspects concerning the whole shipping setup on which I should like some explanation from the Minister. Let us take, for example, car freights. This is an instance of an Australian industry being treated in a manner not in its best interest. Our competitors enjoy advantages over Australian industry and Australian manufacturing. The knock down car freight rate from Australia to Papua New Guinea is $24.23 a ton, while the rate from Japan to New Zealand is $24.85 a ton and from the United Kingdom to New Zealand $31.09 a ton. These figures show what is really happening with freight rates. I think the beauty of them all is that the freight rate from the United Kingdom to Melbourne is $30.35 a ton whereas from the United Kingdom to New Zealand it is $31.09 a ton. In other words this suggests an additional charge of only 74c a ton for freight from Melbourne to New Zealand. These rates clearly demonstrate that Australian industry is being exploited by the conference lines. One could cite quite a number of examples. The rate from Melbourne to New Zealand is $235 per vehicle whereas from Melbourne to Fremantle - in Australian ships - it is $118 a ton. Is it any wonder that Australian car manufacturers are not prepared to be part of the Australian Shippers Council but prefer to negotiate their own freight rates? They realise that if they can use some pressure or some tactics against the conference line to get some concession they can do it better on their own than by participating in the Shippers Council.

I also draw attention to the failure of this Government to expand the Australian National Line into the overseas shipping conferences to an extent greater than at the moment. At present one ANL ship operates between Australia and Japan, one between Australia and Europe, one between Australia and the east coast of the United States of America and one between Australia and the west coast of the USA. In all, 4 ships are operating. Statements have appeared in the Press to the effect that when the ship under construction in Japan for the ANL is completed, the ‘Australian Enterprise’ will be taken off the Australia to Japan run, so we will still have only one ship on that run.

This is a field crying out for Commonwealth intervention, not only for shipping but also for ports. A farcical situation exists today. In the Commonwealth the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) all control some part of shipping. The Minister for Trade and Industry apparently handles the freight side of it; the Minister for Shipping and Transport handles the operational side; and the Minister for Labour and National Service makes an equally bad mess in relation to wharves and stevedoring. At the moment there are 90 ports in Australia under 30 different authorities, all controlled by the States. There is a need for the Commonwealth to intervene in this field either by way of assuming responsibility for all of the ports or alternatively by establishing a commission or authority of some type whereby the Commonwealth and the States enter into a joint responsibility for all Australian ports. The Commonwealth, if need be, would make money available and the States would be the operating authority. The sooner this happens the better.

Trade is this Parliament’s responsibility. We are responsible for all of Australia’s overseas trade. We are responsible for trade between the States. Intrastate trade is so small that it just does not matter in the overall picture. This Parliament is responsible for the major and by far the greater percentage of our trade. For these reasons alone we should be operating the ports. We should be responsible for them. The Sydney container terminal is one of the worst of its type in relation to throughput. It is in an area where it never should have been put. All traffic to and from the terminal has to go through some of the densest traffic in Australia. It has S-storey stacking and taken all round it is one of the worst container terminals I have seen, and I have seen a few of them.

The ports of Newcastle and Port Kembla are not nearly deep enough to handle the modern bulk ships that are available today. The same thing can be said of the old, antiquated port of Brisbane - a tidal river port which is privately owned. All ports should be brought under Commonwealth-State responsibility. The Commonwealth should provide the funds and the States should carry out the work. Sydney Harbour is recognised as one of the best ports in the world, but the largest coal ship it can load is a vessel of 44,000 tons. This gives an indication of the need for the Commonwealth Government to move into this field. The some applies to shipping. Until such time as the Australian National Line has sufficient ships operating in overseas trade to provide real competition for conference lines - not just a ‘window’ to which the former Minister for Trade and Industry referred - Australian primary industry will be taken for a ride and exploited by the conference lines as it has been for many years now.

The Opposition believes that the Australian National Line, either by building ships in Australia, by chartering them or by buying them, should be extending its activities into all of the conferences instead of having one ship in 3 of the conferences and one in an open conference. This is the only way in which we will overcome the problem of the exploitation of Australian primary and secondary industry. We realise that it will cost money. Every major country today has its own shipping line. In many cases countries have had to subsidise those lines. I have a list of the subsidies that are provided, but at least those countries control their own shipping activities. It is not chickenfeed that is involved. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, freights on our imports and exports cost in the vicinity of $900m a year. In the last 10 years they have represented approximately $7,000m, which is a large sum of money. The Government should be interested in taking measures to ensure that Conferences Lines do not continue to exploit Australian industry. The Government can take action by doing the things that I have suggested and also by making regular reports to the Parliament through the Minister responsible for trade, advising the Parliament of the negotiations which have taken place and the result of those negotiations and letting the Parliament make some decision and determination on what should be done in this important part of our trade.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– I wish to contribute only a few brief remarks to this debate on the amendment to the Restrictive Trade Practices

Act. I suppose that what could be said about the speech of the honourable member for Newscastle (Mr Charles Jones) is that at least he was consistent because it was very much the line that has been put abroad by members of the Opposition in speaking on this subject. But I think that honourable members might be excused for imagining that this was a debate on shipping rates, judging from the speech that we have just heard. Of course, it is not a debate on shipping rates at all; it is a debate on an amendment to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act designed to make it work, to make it operative - indeed, to do exactly what I understood the honourable member for Newscastle to be saying, namely, to give the Act some teeth. The purpose of the amendment now before the House is to give the Act those teeth that it perhaps does not have at the moment because of the situation that has arisen in regard to shipper bodies. I think that one could go further and say that the honourable member for Newscastle has made out a very good case why this amendment to the Act should be passed as soon as possible.

But what are we concerned about in this debate? We are concerned about the operation of Part XII of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in view of the situation that has arisen with respect to shipper bodies. Of course, the shipper bodies themselves play an integral part in the scheme of the legislation laid down in Part XII. Briefly, the scheme of the legislation is that the Act provides that this Part of the Act operates with respect to agreements and the agreements that are referred to and are subject to the operation of the Act are set out in some detail. They are, not surprisingly, agreements that are related to the fixing or regulation of freight rates, agreements under which there are given to the shippers of goods or withheld from shippers special rates or special privileges or advantages, agreements concerning the pooling or apportioning of earnings, losses or traffic and so on. Generally speaking, one could describe them as restrictive provisions. So, basically that is what we are concerned with in the operation of this Act - agreements between shipping companies which have within them restrictive provisions.

The scheme of the legislation goes on to provide the machinery for examining these agreements with a view to achieving the result that is sought, which is that sought by the whole operation of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, namely, an increasing competition and freedom in trade and commerce and, generally, a healthier climate for business activity. The type of examination or procedure to which these agreements are subjected is that which is sought under the Act, namely, negotiations. There is ample scope in the Act for negotiations between the parties to the Conference shipping agreements and the shippers. When I refer to the shippers, this brings me to the whole crux of the problem that has arisen. The problem arises not so much by the wording of the legislation as it has been but rather by virtue of the situation that exists with respect to the shipper bodies themselves. I would have thought, from an examination of the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), that the problem that has arisen has been described very concisely and clearly. During the course of his second reading speech, the Minister said that, to overcome the difficulties which militated against the formation of separate shipper bodies in each trade, the study group that was appointed to examine this problem recommended to him that the existing legislative provisions be amended to allow a nationally constituted Australian Shippers Council to be the one designated body for negotiations in all Trades.

It will be seen, of course, that what needed to be established under the legislation, as it was, was a separate shipper body with respect to each trade that was conducted from Australia. In his speech, the Minister for Trade and Industry made it clear that 5 of those shipper bodies had been established but that, nevertheless, there were other outgoing trades from Australia that were not as yet covered by shipper bodies. So, as the Minister explained when the Bill was introduced, it has become clear that what is necessary is the establishment of what he referred to as a nationally constituted Australian Shippers Council’. Of course, this Shippers Council will be the one shipper body which will be referred to henceforth in the legislation and with which negotiations will take place. It is fairly clear from that very brief outline of it that the machinery will be operated much more efficiently and practically with the one shippers council which will act as a party in these negotiations. 1 think that really is, quite simply, the sole problem which has arisen in this field.

May I return to that part of the speech made by the honourable member for NewCastle. Where he referred at considerable length to the increases that have taken place in freight rates. What he did not say, or perhaps what he did not appreciate, was that the cases of substantial freight rate increases that he cited were ones in which there had been no shipper body or even in which there is still no shipper body. One very good example that the honourable member for Newcastle gave was that of the east coast of North America trade. It is a good example because it shows the situation that existed before the shipper body was established and the situation which has existed since the establishment of such a body. As I understand it, in 1971 on the east coast of North America trade there was no shipper body and, consequently, none of these negotiations which are an integral part of the operation of this Part Of the Act could take place. The result was that there was a freight rate increase of 25 per cent. However, in 1972, when there is a shipper body on that route, the increase has been only 6.5 per cent. 1 would have thought that from that example and, indeed, from the other examples that the honourable member for Newcastle gave one could see quite clearly that there is an advantage in having the one shipper body because, in the absence of a specific shipper body dealing with the particular area of trade, the negotiations which are so basic to the operation of this Act cannot take place. Although expressed in fairly concise terms, that is the situation. It is the reason and the explanation why this legislation is necessary. I would have thought that Part XII of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act provided a framework for a very effective trade practices system. Indeed, I think that one could make out quite a case for saying that this Part of the Act already has more potential teeth than the other parts of the Act. But, of course, only the framework is there in the legislation and if, because of this legislation, Part XII of the Act can be made to operate effectively - if it is given the raw material to act effectively - that would seem to me to make a very substantial contribution to increasing trade competition which, after all, is the very purpose of any restrictive trade practices legislation.

I mentioned before that the basis of Part XII of the Act was negotiations, and that is so. What is directed in Part XII of the Act is that there will be negotiations between the shippers’ bodies on the one hand and parties to the conference shipping agreements on the other. The Act as it is at the moment looks for specific and separate shippers’ bodies, and when the Act is amended when this Bill becomes legislation there will merely be one designated shippers’ body, and consequently those negotiations that are looked for in the legislation will be able to take place, and take place efficiently and practically. Let us not forget, especially when we hear the honourable member for Newcastle refer to the weakness of this legislation, that the consequences of noncompliance with these provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act are very serious consequences indeed, because the Government has the power under this legislation, if the provisions of it are not complied with, to bring the conference shipping agreements to an end. It is worthwhile having a look at section 117 of the Act to see just how far those consequences go. When one looks at section 117 of the Act one sees that the Government - the Governor-General, as it is expressed in the Act - ‘may by order disapprove a conference agreement’. That means that he may disapprove a conference agreement whether or not the particulars of the agreement have been filed under the Act. He may do so on any one of a number of grounds.

He may do so on the ground that the parties to the agreement have not appointed an agent for the purpose of negotiations as they are required to do under the legislation. The agreement may be disapproved on an alternative ground that the parties to the agreement have not complied with a request from the Minister that an undertaking should be given that open and frank negotiations and discussions take place. That is an obligation imposed by the legislation on parties to the agreement, and if that undertaking is not given that is a ground for disapproving the conference agreement. If on a report from the Trade Practices Tribunal, the Minister is satisfied that the agreement - I paraphase slightly - is one that will not give rise in its terms or ils operation to efficient, economical or adequate competition the agreement may be disapproved. Without going on, one can say that there are very clearly provisions in this part of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act which can be very effective indeed so long as they can be put into operation. What has stopped this part of the Act from being put into operation is the problem I have described as the problem of having appropriate shippers’ bodies established with which the negotiations can take place. As I have said, it is sought by this legislation to have designated as one shippers’ body the Australian Shippers Council and that henceforth that will be the body which will be a party to these very important negotiations. When this amendment is made this legislation should be very effective.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I do not want to say a great deal about this Bill because it is a comparatively flimsy document itself, and it seems to me that principally what it does is that where the word ‘relevant’ appears in section 116 it is now to be replaced by the word ‘designated’ in order to replace what were formerly a variety of shippers’ arrangements by a single shippers’ body to be called the Australian Shippers Council. I am a bit surprised in a way that the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) when he introduced this Bill did not provide a lot more background information about it than he did, because I think that in the absence of such filling-out of reasoning some of us are at a bit of a loss as to why what is being done now is in fact being done at all. It seems that it is another one of those last thoughts on the part of the Government that it appeases somebody somewhere by doing this sort of thing, and therefore the legislation is brought in hastily in the hope that not much will be said about it at a stage in the Parliament when everybody is wanting to get away. I wish that if the Minister and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who are having a conversation at the table, would move a little bit further away. [ hoped that the Minister would listen to one or two of the observations I was proposing to make. He no doubt is more familiar than most people are with the constituency of the Australian Shippers Council. Nowhere are any details provided in the second reading speech as to who the bodies are that make up this Council. It would have helped considerably if that information had been available. I must rely for my information on 2 quite interesting pieces of correspondence that appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of last week. In that newspaper on Wednesday, 18th October, appeared a letter and, oddly enough, on the same day an article commenting on the letter. Presumably the gentleman who wrote the letter or the editor extended the courtesy of supplying in advance a copy to the gentleman who wrote the article.

The Minister has just handed me a list containing the bodies that make up the Australian Shippers Council. With all respect, I should think that that list ought to have been included in his second reading speech. I doubt whether a body drawn as diversely as that one is in any sense can be claimed to be a representative body. In essence what has been done here is that whereas previously particular sections of industry chose to make their own arrangements as shippers it is now suggested that arrangements would be better made if the larger body representing several of the groups in combination made them. I am not quite sure whether that is necessarily a sustainable proposition. After all, if one took such bodies as the Australian Apple and Pear Board, the Australian Egg Board, the Australian Wine Board, the Australian Meat Board, the Iron and Steel Workers Association, the Wool Textile Manufacturers of Australia, one would find it hard to determine what it is they all have in common other than, of course, that they are all shippers. But they demand different kinds of ship space; they demand different seasonal arrangements; their trade often is in different parts of the world. Yet somehow we are told that things will be more efficient with this new body, the Australian Shippers Council.

I hoped that the Minister might explain why this new arrangement is necessarily more efficient than the other. How big the body is, I do not know. Is each body on it separately and equally represented or do several groups of them combine to supply a member? What is the administrative arrangement of the body? Does it act through a secretary. Is it sectional in its organisation? All these are matters upon which one requires further information. It seems to me that there are 2 diverse points of view. One is put by Mr James Ramsden, taking what he possibly regards as a more objective approach, and the other is put by Mr A. F. J. Smith of the Australia to Europe Shippers Association, who of course is speaking specifically as a shipper. Mr Ramsden makes this important point:

The point is that there is no effective control of shipping conferences in this country.

This Bill does not alter the shipping conference. All it does is face the. shipping conference with a shippers body which is supposed to be more effective than the more heterogeneous arrangement that applied before. But the conference is still there, more as a unit.

In many respects we have suffered in the past because we. as sellers of primary produce, seem to have been less well organised than other countries have been as buyers. In some respects in shipping this has been the reverse. The buyers, from a shipping space point of view, have lacked effective organisation. On the other hand, those who own the ships realised long ago that cartelisation or organisation is to be preferred to open competition. It seems at the moment that in the shipping world there is a little more surplus shipping available than was previously the case. The Australian Wool Board, by making its own shipping arrangements, was able to achieve reductions in freight by its own effort. Whether by being in this it is adding its strength to the weaker units, I do not know. Mr Ramsden says:

There is no effective control of shipping conferences in this country, and the benefits of unified operations do not flow to exporters - or at least they do not flow to exporters through the

AESA–

That was the older shipping organisation - or any other ‘recognised’ shipper body conglomerate.

Now there is to be only one designated body rather than the ones formerly recognised. He continues:

Nor are they likely to flow through the activities of the even bigger conglomerate, the Australian Shippers’ Council–

That is the new body - unless the conferences are effectively controlled and even then, only if the Council adopts sounder business methods than any of its individual predecessors.

Presumably Mr Ramsden holds no very high opinion of those earlier shipper organisations from a business point of view.

On the other hand, Mr Smith writes this letter primarily in rebuttal of an article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of Friday, 6th October, entitled The Shipping Tangle’. He accuses the newspaper of following ‘the long established pattern of your comments on overseas shipping arrangements by presenting an unduly biased viewpoint on which you based destructive criticism of the capabilities of organised bodies of exporters and of Government policy’. Presumably Mr Smith rises to the. defence of Government policy and the efficacy of shipping arrangements against what he regards as the ratherjaundiced and unfair presentation of the case by the Australian Financial Review’. Whether the earlier article was written by Mr Ramsden, I do not know. In his letter Mr Smith comes finally to this proposition:

Let us have the privilege of seeing your plan for providing an alternative regular service for thousands of small and not so small parcels of refrigerated and dry cargo from 25 ports in Australiato hundreds of ports overseas and to countlessinland destinations on a basis which provides frequent opportunities of shipment to cover the whole requirements ofthe trade.

With all respect to Mr Smith, I think he is painting a pretty wide picture when he talks about 25 ports in Australia, as though those ports apparently are all of equal significance. I suppose the port of Portland is nowhere near as significant as the port of Port Melbourne.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– It should be.

Mr CREAN:

– Maybe it should be, and perhaps this sort of legislation can help to make the smaller places more effective. If that is the case, I would be glad to hear an explanation from the Government. The honourable member will be retiring but the Minister for Trade and Industry will be here in one capacity or another for a good number of years yet. He is in charge of this Bill. With all respect to him, I do not think he has provided us with the sort of information that is required to answer these cross-arguments. I do not know basically whether Mr Smith is right, whether Mr Ramsden is right or whether each of them has a certain element of truth in his argument. This is often the case. But in a country like Australia where we spend over S 1,000m on freight, when we talk of our exports and imports - this Bill is related primarily to export shipping - it seems to the Opposition that we have not paid enough attention to trying to break the power of the conference.

We have all known the experience of large bodies like the Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company wanting to use its ships in the Australian trade and yet refusing to divulge its bookkeeping transactions so that fair pricing can be arrived at. I submit that if a company wants to use us we should be entitled to ask for information as to profitability and so on. Even an apparently invincible body as the P & O company has been assailed in the last month or two by prospects of a takeover. As recently as 7th October 1972 ‘The Economist’ had the following heading on its Business Investment page:

Will the next bidder for P & O please step right up now?

It does not seem to bode very well for the future if a significant member of the conference is not even likely to be the same kind of entity within a matter of a few months. There has been talk of Bovis and some other group being about to swallow P & O. The assault has been avoided for the time being, but it would seem to me that the Minister has been more concerned to rationalise the shippers’ side of things on this occasion - I am not too sure that he has made out the case that this is the best form of rationalisation - and has paid very little attention to the great aggregate power that is possessed by the conference itself. After all, the Bill deals with sections of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Certainly they are limited sections. As I have tried to point out today, this Bill is a very restrictive one, but nevertheless it amends the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1971 in relation to overseas cargo shipping. The Opposition thinks that the power of the conference is at least a significant matter for legislation.

The other general objection has been mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) who has indicated that we feel that in some respects, since Government money goes to assist the Australian Shippers’ Council, at least its constituency ought to have been designated to some extent in the Bill and that there ought to have been provisions for annual reporting on behalf of the Australian Shippers’ Council so that from time to time we can have a look at its construction. We also feel that the Council or the Government, through the Act, should have provided itself with some more teeth for restricting the power of what is generally described as the conference. We are sorry that those omissions were not remedied when the Bill was drawn. It is too late at this stage to propose amendments. In many respects I think this is just a part of the window dressing in which the Government has been engaged. What it should have been doing over the past two or three years it has now decided to do in the past two or three weeks of this Parliament. I am afraid that this legislation has been conceived in that way. But what we will face in the next Parliament will be the proper amendments that ought to have been made to make this measure really effective.

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

– I support my colleague the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) in his comments on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill. I am afraid, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has mentioned, that this legislation will not be a complete answer, but I say that in a different sense to what he indicated. I would like to answer the comments of the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) because I think they should be replied to. As a primary producer I am concerned about the tens of thousands of primary producers in Australia who face great cost rises brought about by our way of life, particularly in relation to our exports. This is an area over which up to the present we have not had very much control. Undoubtedly this legislation will in a sense tie up the central issue of our freight situation. The honourable member for Newcastle spoke about S900m being spent in Australia on freight charges. This is a bald statement and is a most misleading one. I am surprised that it is not larger than that. It will be larger in a few years because that statement indicates that we are a tremendous trading nation. Whether the honourable member was referring to exports or imports or was lumping the 2 together I do noi know. A sum of $900m is a frightening figure to any primary producer or any Australian.

Let us have a look at the figures. I accept the honourable member’s figure of S900m, but let us analyse it. I point out than 40 per cent of that amount is spent in Australia in stevedoring charges. This is where our trouble lies. I suppose that when a ship goes to the other side of the world another 40 per cent is to be spent there. If in the centre there is a shipping line with its overheads, amortisation and all the rest of it. honourable members can work out where the profits lie. In fact I have noted from their balance sheets that shipping companies are not a very attractive investment proposition. This seems to give the lie to what the honourable member for Newcastle has said. I am concerned at the cost to the primary producers. The honourable member for Newcastle said that the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board, the Australian Meat Board, the Australian Wool Board and the rest of the primary producer organisations are terribly concerned about what primary producers pay in shipping freights. Unfortunately this is going to get worse. The 40 per cent which I referred to and which constitutes stevedoring charges, harbour dues and all these sorts of things will increase, simply because the waterfront unions and the employers have come to a new agreement which will increase the cost of our shipping operations by S9m. Who is going to pay for that increase? Obviously it will not be the employers and the employees. It will be the primary producers or those who manufacture goods for export. This is where our problems lie.

I recollect that last year charges in the United Kingdom went up by 32 per cent. Freight rates have to reflect these sorts of charges. When a strike occurred on the waterfront in Great Britain last year - and there was another one recently - ships which came from Australia had to unload at European ports, the cargo had to be transhipped to Great Britain and our promary producers and other exporters had to pay. Such things increase our costs the whole time. This piece of legislation will tie up the situation, I believe, as far as shipping companies are concerned, but unless this Government acts and does a better job than it has done over the years on our waterfront we will be in trouble.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Hear, hear!

Mr BARNES:

– I am glad to hear the honourable member for Newcastle say: Hear, hear’. I would like him to bend his efforts into bringing a bit of responsibility into the waterfront unions. They have destroyed our intrastate and interstate shipping lines. The honourable member for Newcastle pleads for an Australian line to carry our goods overseas. If such a line did for our overseas shipping what such an arrangement has done for our Australian shipping, God help us. If we do not profit from history we will make the same mistakes again. I recollect reading in the Press - this is all doubtful, of course - a plea from the Seamens Union of Australia to provide married quarters on new ships which are being constructed. They will have some pretty decent strikes when that happens. The crews will have a home away from home. Goodness knows what will happen then. All these things are loaded against the primary producers. I hope to goodness the primary producer boards understand that their problems come not so much from the shipping companies but from the irresponsibility of waterfront unions here in Australia and overseas. Employers want peace, but peace at a cost to the community. This happens not only on the waterfront; it happens elsewhere.

This Federal Government has the power, I believe, to take action in this respect. If it has not got the power it should attract the power to deal with these sorts of things. If we are blackmailed every time we are tn these sorts of difficult situations and give in we will be forced to the wall. Only recently in the great sugar producing area of Bundaberg a tanker was tied up outside the port and another tanker was tied up just off Brisbane because the tugboat operators would not bring them into the harbour to unload. Two-thirds of the sugar crop had been harvested and only a month or so remained to harvest the rest of the crop. The unions held the gun at the heads of the harbour board with demands for increased wages, improved conditions and all the rest of it. The community pays for this sort of irresponsibility. We believe in a fair go for the working man but not for this sort of blackmail that happens in some of our seasonal industries. It has happened in north Queensland where our fat cattle are brought in only in a few months of the year; we have had to close down because of strikes, holdups and so on. This has happened many times over the years. 1 support this Bill because I believe it can put us in a position of some strength in relation to decisions on freight charges. Until we tie up the irresponsible attitudes and the chaos which exist on our waterfront there will not be much chance for us in the future.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Barnes) speaks of course for the rural squirearchy and in the sentiments of the finer minds of the 19th century. This Government, of course, has a vested interest in fermenting, if possible, industrial disturbances. Need I remind the House that not so very long ago a consent agreement between the waterside employers and the Waterside Workers Federation was duly filed in the court and the Government chose to intervene and appeal. The Government has a vested interest, particularly at times of elections, in trying to ferment industrial disputes and industrial disturbances. I will waste no more time on the honourable member.

Australia is the twelfth biggest trading nation of the world. The figure of $900m a year given by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) is approximately correct, that figure being the component of our inward and outward freight charges. There is no country in the world - Australia being an island continent - that is more dependent on marine transport. Instead of being one of the common carriers of the Pacific in accordance with the traditions of the nation from which we came, we find that we are at the mercy ot a group of cartels and that this Government, quite deliberately and systematically and by conscious planning over the years, has chosen to accept a situation whereby the producers of Australia have been literally hogtied and exploited. The history of Australian shipping is a roll of dishonour. It goes right back to the sale in the 1920s of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. This Government and its predecessors, in principle if not in title - whatever name conservative governments call themselves by, their principles are the same - have looked upon anything in the form of national enterprise as being a type of economic leprosy and could not and cannot drop it quickly enough. Of course, ever since the sale of that line in the late 1920s we have been at the mercy of the shipping cartels.

This Bill is a lineal descendant of the Australian Industries Preservation Act passed in the 1930s which enshrined the agreement that was entered into. It is worth quoting a speech of Senator Paltridge when he was Minister for Shipping and Transport. He said:

This Government believes in private enterprise. It has been an open secret for some years that it has been exploiting the possibility of disposing of Commonwealth owned vessels to private enterprise. Having found it not possible to sell the ships on terms satisfactory to itself, it decided they would continue in operation under government ownership.

Of course, the terms were to literally hogtie what has now emerged as the Australian National Line. The Government agreed - and this is typical of its stupidity and its deliberate economic sabotage - that the Australian National Line would not operate more than 350,000 tons of shipping in coastal and territorial waters. It also undertook that the Australian National Line would not do the booking and handling of its own cargoes but would use the services of the signatory companies in any port where they provided those services. It is this reluctance to take initiatives that would permit the Australian National Line to compete with or replace private enterprise which reached heights of absurdity in Australia.

Need I remind honourable members of the crowning absurdity of the transport of bauxite from Weipa to Gladstone. The Australian National Line was not allowed to compete. An overseas company was given the contract and then had to hire an Australian National Line ship to transport the bauxite. That sort of thing can happen only in Australia and only under a conservative government such as now holds office. Since the sale of the first Commonwealth line in the late 1920s we have depended almost exclusively on these cartels in respect of the transport of both our imports and exports. These cartels are deliberately structured in such a way that even the weakest and most inefficient of their members are able to show a profit. Of course, if the weakest member of the cartel can show the agreed 8 per cent after inflating the whole of its costs, what are the profits of the major members of the cartel, those bigger members, those which are more efficient and those which provide more ships in the service? in 1956 - ar.d this is typical of the developments that have occurred - a committee of inquiry was set up to inquire into the stevedoring industry. The members of the committee in their report, which was published in 1 957, stated:

We find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate determining factor in setting the freight rates to and from Australia is what the traffic will bear.

By that they mean exactly this: The lines will stick the Australian producer and the Australian consumer for just as much as they think they can gouge out of him. In 1965 the Trade Practices Act was introduced. To begin with, in Part XII of the Act the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act were preserved. Here is a crowning example of a legal anomaly - what might be called a legal oxymoron, or a situation where there is an absolute contradiction in terms. Here we have legislation which is allegedly for the purpose of controlling restrictive practices, and to some extent it does so in the rest of its parts. But in the case of Part XII it does exactly the opposite. The Act specifically excludes from that part the operations of sections 35, 36 and 37 dealing with examinable agreements, examinable practices and the various definitions of monopoly and monopoly trading. Equally it excludes the provisions of Part X of the Act which deals with collusive tendering and restrictive bidding. Here, in other words, in an Act which allegedly is to restrict economic abuses, the Government not only condones these abuses but specifically mentions its condonation of them. It has been said that the Trade Practices Act of 1967 and also the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1971, and the intervening amendment, were a legal joke in bad taste.

I come now to the objectives of this Bill, which are two-fold. Firstly the Bill is designed to provide one body - a designated body which the Government tor its own obscure purposes does not choose to name but has said obtusely will be the Australian Shippers Council. Also the Bill seeks to bring into the net individual lines which do not form part of a conference and which have been trading to and from Australia. The Government’s decision to enter the overseas trade is worth examining. Nominally, the Government iS a member of three of the conferences - that is the groups of lines that take freight between Australia and Europe, between Australia and Japan and between Australia and the east coast of the United States of America and the ports of the Gulf of Mexico. In each case we have a situation where literally the cops have joined the robbers. How can a government which is supposed to hold the ring between rival interests of exporters and importers on the one hand and the very shipping combines on the other be itself a party to, and privy to, the arrangements of these cartels. In justification it was alleged that information would be obtained that otherwise could not be obtained. It would appear though that instead of the initiative coming from the Government, in the first place it came from Sir Basil Smallpiece. the spokesman of the Cunard Line. Nothing could be better than to have the Australian Government trapped in a position of this kind because it happened to coincide with the introduction of the container transport system, which to a very large extent is responsible for the marked increases, the escalating increases in freights to this day. These increases are continuing.

It was a mighty good guarantee and a very astute move on the part of the British shipping interests to trap the Australian Government in this fasion because even now the question of containerisation and its applicability to the various forms of export trade from Australia has not been fully satisfied or fully examined. If proof of that is needed it can be found in the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes which said that a lot of points needed full examination and the containerisation system may not stand up to full scrutiny. To this day there are heated debates within the major shipping companies as to where they are going under containerisation. There are equally heated debates amongst these operators on the relative merits of the Scandia system. The Scandinavians, who were responsible for the introduction of that system, have my respect because I think they know far more about shipping than do their British rivals. The cops having joined the robbers, what could one expect other than the amendment which is now under consideration by the House.

It boils down to this: The Conference system is literally disintegrating. The Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Council have been doing deals overseas, and pretty good deals too. Of course, wool is the prestige cargo. It is the largest item of export from Australia, particularly to Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Japan. Concessions have been obtained by independent negotiations. As a matter of fact, as the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) said in his second reading speech, a very considerable number of various interests in Australian exports have never entered into negotiations with the Conferences. What could be better with the system on the point of collapse and with wool being the most lucrative and highly profitable form of trade? If they lose that trade the Conference system would find itself in a difficult position. Other Australian exporters - those dealing in metals and minerals - have also made their own independent deals. As the Minister has said, quite a number of these exporters, not having entered into agreements wilh the Conferences, have made their private deals and will continue to do so. In the Australian Exporters Council there appear to be about 48 identifiable separate interests which were all capable of entering into agreement when the first move was made to set up this Council but only 23 of them accepted it; 11 rejected it and another 6 looked like rejecting it. Another 4 may join it. The remainder have not replied. The Government can pull them all in and tie them to the Conference system because the Minister has the power to direct once they have entered into agreements with the Conferences. That would suit the Govern ment’s book very nicley but it would not suit the respective interests, and there are many of them escaping the net.

The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) also referred to the Minister’s powers under section 117 to vet or, by the artifice of the Governor-General in Council, disallow an agreement. I would like to hear from the Minister for Trade and Industry of any agreement which has been disallowed. The Government wants it this way. But there is a position in the world today of acute over-tonnage. In the port of Piraeus less than 2 years ago there were 250 ships tied up and today throughout the world there are plenty of fleets of vessels looking for cargo. It is time we put a little bit of competition into the export trade. It is time also that we spoke in terms of an Australian national overseas shipping line because today the United States is prepared to subsidise and 1 suppose its maritime operating costs are the highest of any country. Another angle which can be put on it is that any nation for its own defence needs an experienced and competent merchant marine. It is Australia’s destiny to be the common carrier in the Pacific Ocean and the sooner we knuckle down to that the better for all concerned and the cheaper it will be tor the Australian people, producers and importers.

Subsidies might have their critics but nevertheless pretty well 50 per cent of the freight charges now going abroad would be staying in Australia if there were subsidies. Whilst at the present time there is some hot money coming into Australia, and some money that is scarcely respectable - 5 am referring to the Euro dollar which is suspect currency - that flow will not be there for all time and when it has stopped we will be back on our beam ends again and will need to save every penny piece we can. If this Government were a government worthy of the name it would be insisting that Australian ships were at least getting half the transport of coal and various minerals to Japan. We are entitled to this but it is the last thing this Government would ever attempt because it is a subservient government. It is a government which will always adopt the low posture because it is not a truly Australian government in spirit, sentiment or behaviour.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– This Bill concerns the concentration of authority and negotiating power of exporters under the auspices of one body. It concerns the concentration of authority or bargaining power as distinct from the fragmentation of that authority or power. I find it somewhat surprising that members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), cannot place any faith in this legislation. It is true, of course, that, as with a great deal of other legislation, a lot depends on the intent of the Bill and the efficiency with which that intent is ca Tied into effect. Were the Bill not to be implemented effectively it is true that they could rightly say that it is ineffective. However, there is no reason at this stage to put that sort of connotation upon it. We do have some evidence that the remedy of diversification of authority and fragmentation of operation is something to be achieved in the interests of industry, in particular the export industry; for example, the recent somewhat belated - it was very nearly too late, though one hopes it was not - development of the fresh fruit shippers from Tasmania so that now we have the situation where shippers have concentrated their forces under one company now known as Tasfruit Pty Ltd.

In the current annual report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board we find that it is hoped that the rationalisation and improvements made in the shipping of apples and pears from Australia may have saved freight and associated costs in this last season to the tune of $lm. It would need only a similar kind of success through collaboration, amalgamation and concentration of negotiating power in the Australian Shippers Council to give more than a little hope that the same sort of achievement might be possible in relation to the shipping companies and the export trade in various goods from Australia. Members of the Opposition have had a great deal to say in the several preceding speeches today about possible alternatives and the apparent shortcomings of the Bill. It has been said both inside and outside this House that this legislation can be seen as a paper tiger. Those allegations need to be tested. My understanding is that if the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act were not carried into effect we might indeed correctly refer to the legislation as a paper tiger. * i

If the shipping companies were to continue to refuse to table relevant information which would enable the exporters or their representatives to determine reasonable freight rates for particular commodities, this legislation might be rendered ineffective. It would certainly be less effective than we would hope it to be. I draw the Minister’s attention to that expression of opinion which I believe is current in the industry. From my reading - and I am reinforced by the legal opinion of my colleague the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) - the amendment we are discussing makes it possible for the Minister to operate through the designated body to determine what relevant information should be brought forward by the shipping companies, and to see that the relevant information is provided and can be taken into account. The designated shipper body referred to in section 116 of the Principal Act and in clause 5 of this Bill is the shipper body designated by the Minister. To all intents and purposes it will be the Australian Shippers Council. It is hoped that in respect of the matters I have mentioned that single authority will have the capacity, will and ability to bring forward freight rates of a kind which will ensure the continued export of goods from Australia on a competitive basis.

I draw attention to what the Minister had to say. Paraphrasing him a little, he referred to overcoming the difficulties which militated against the formation of separate shipper bodies in each trade. He said that the existing legislative provisions will allow a nationally constituted Australian Shippers Council to be the one designated body for negotiations in all trades. In another part of his speech the Minister said that that should obviate some of the problems, which I will not now reiterate, associated with individual and particular interests operating on their own behalf and operating sometimes to the benefit of major exporters, perhaps setting aside the interests of minor shippers.

Honourable members opposite have had a great deal to say about what might be wrong with this legislation and what alternative action could be taken. The honourable member for Cunningham said that we are dealing with cartels of ship owners who are by definition congregated to work in their own best interests and, he assumed, perhaps in the worst interests of Australian exporters. While that may have been true from time to time, and because of increasing freight rates at present might even be alleged to be the case now, so far as i know the annual accounts of most shipping companies operating internationally are a good way from the position he suggests of a highly selfinterested cartel operation which is holding everybody outside its organisation to ransom. The world shipping situation has not been particularly healthy since about 1956, at the time of the closure of the Suez Canal. There have been fluctuations, a temporary overbuilding in the tanker industry, a catching up with the situation and then a repetition of the overbuilding. With the permanent closure of the Suez Canal the section of the shipping industry involved knows better where it is placed. It conducts all its trade around the Cape of Good Hope rather than by alternative routes through the Middle East, Suez Canal and so on.

The trawler section of the shipping industry has not been happy. Numbers of ships have been laid up around the world and my understanding is that the liner section of the trade, as distinct from the carriage of bulk cargoes in ships of badly defined lineage and quite poor state compared with the more highly developed liners, has been more affected by constantly and rapidly increasing stevedoring costs, together with constantly and rapidly increasing shipbuilding costs, lt is necessary to be very selective in dealing with the shipping industry, whether it is in relation to passengers or one form or other of freights, to find anything which could reasonably he alleged to be a high rate of return on investment. It is necessary to bear in mind that most shipping lines of any consequence have very high capitalisation and need a very significant return on capital to make them appear to an independent outsider to be a reasonable form of investment. I think that such an examination would show the position to be a long way from the allegations and implications of the honourable member for Cunningham about the shipping industry. But that is not really our present concern. Our concern should be for the exporters. The legislation relates to ensuring that cartel inclined shipping lines will not be able to hold the exporters of this country to ransom.

Honourable members opposite expressed a touching faith in the possible extension and expansion of the Australian National Line. That is heartening for the ANL, but as the honourable member fo Mcpherson (Mr Barnes), a former Minister for External Territories, pointed out, there is very little precedent in the operations of the ANL to suggest that its proliferation into other fields would bring great hope and joy to Australian exporters. If the contrary turned out to be the case, well and good, but there is little to expect in that direction at present. Acting against the hopes for the ANL are the activities of seamen and various associated persons such as stewards and stevedores. Over the years in varying degrees they have held the people of this country to ransom, not least the people of Tasmania who are so dependent upon shipping, both interstate and overseas.

The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) and one or two other Opposition members have mentioned already that this Government in their view is a low profile Government, subservient to other interests. 1 would not have thought at the time when the House debated the mass of amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act only a few months ago and this Government and its members contested the right of the Government to involve itself in conciliation and arbitration in the public interest that the Government was being subservient to anybody. If you recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members opposite were at some pains to contradict our intent and our belief that we could involve ourselves in the public interest. They suggested that negotiations between employers and employees would leave them quite happy. This was precisely what we were not happy about then and what we are not happy about now. We are most interested to see that the public - for example, the public of Tasmania - is properly catered for in shipping matters which relate to its public interest.

At the present time, the major single exporting sector of Tasmanian industry, that is to say, the export of fresh fruits, is not falling within the province of the Australian Shippers Council. Charter negotiations are being conducted. I believe that the requirements of the 1973 season are just about catered for by negotiations at the present time. Tasmanian exporters, despite the very considerable improvement which appears tohave been made through the concentrating of exporting interests in Tasfruit Pty Ltd, face a situation in which approximately 60 per cent of the value of their product must meet freight costs. That is an enormous proportion of their total potential return. Their investment and return fell heavily in one economic area, hence the very basic importance of freight rates.

What I must reiterate in that portion of my time that I wish to use is that the intention of this legislation is to concentrate exporter interests under one body. It will have not only a permanent staff by which continuity and all that goes with permanency are possible but also, as described by the Minister, comprehensive research facilities. One imagines - indeed, one presumes - that it will be possible for the staff of the Australian Shippers Council to look in more detail now than hitherto at the question of freight rates and other associated matters and at what, in a certain circumstance, in relation to a particular product, at a particular time, in respect of volume to be shipped and so on, will be a reasonable thing. If the Council is not provided with a better bargaining base in relation to the shipping companies, whether they be cartels or otherwise, something indeed is wrong with the execution of the proposition which seems to me to be entirely admirable.

I do not wish to see out my full time in this debate. Others wish to participate in the discussion of this and other Bills. I support the Minister in this amendment of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I reiterate however, and draw the attention of the Minister to the fact, thatI think the onus is on us and on the body with which we are dealing here to see that the situation is not one in which a paper tiger operates but that the tiger gets teeth very quickly so that the letter and the spirit of the legislation is carried out by the Australian Shippers Council to the general good of Australian exporters at large and, as far as I am concerned, Tasmania in particular.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Richmond · CP

– in reply - I wish to reply to some of the matters that have been brought up in this debate, especially by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) who led for the Opposition and by some of the members on the Government side. I think some honourable members have been expecting a little too much information from the second reading speech. The amendment of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act relating to overseas cargo shipping really needs to be read in conjunction with the sections of the original Act relating to shipping in order to get all the information that honourable members were seeking.

One question asked by the honourable member for Newcastle was in relation to more information being provided to the Parliament. He asked that an annual report be tabled. It is true that the Australian Shippers Council will be an autonomous body and will raise its own finance privately. But as the Commonwealth will assist in the operations of the secretariat this shippers’ body will need to be subjected to Commonwealth audit. Therefore, an annual report will be presented to Parliament for examination.

Mr Charles Jones:

– How detailed will the report be?

Mr ANTHONY:

– It will not necessarily go into the private affairs of shipowners or shippers because this will be confidential information in most cases. I imagine that where there is an agreement for both parties to provide information in relation to their private affairs that information may he included in the report.

The Government has supported the conference system of liner shipping in our overseas trade subject of course to the safeguards provided in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act because exporters require regular predictable services with known rates of freight. Determining the rates of freight and other conditions of carriage is a matter of commercial negotiation between shippers and shipowners. The Government has legislated to ensure conferences are obliged to enter into meaningful negotiations with shipper bodies on these matters. But there is no obligation for shippers to ship by conference vessels.

They are free to obtain and use more competitive shipping arrangements. Indeed, products once carried by liner vessels are today shipped by charter arrangements, now that export volume has increased. But the essentia] fact is that the vast majority of Australian shippers give their continued support of the conference system because it provides predictable and regular services from more than 30 Australian ports to more than 250 overseas ports. The question is: What better alternative is there?

The honourable member for Newcastle questioned the effectiveness of some of these shipper bodies. May I give the honourable member a few statistics. In the Australia to Europe Conference - the AESA - where a shipper body is operating, general and reefer cargoes in 1972-73 increased by 4 per cent. They are to increase by 4 per cent in 1973-74 and by 4.5 per cent in 1974-75. At the same time, wool cargoes went down by 8 per cent in 1972-73 and by 4 per cent in 1973-74. There will not be an increase in 1974-75. In the east coast to North America conference in 1971 there was no shipper body and there was an increase of 25 per cent in freight. In 1972 when a shipper body was formed there was only a 6.5 per cent increase. The Singapore and West Malaysia conference, where there is a shipper body, sought an increase of 20 per cent this year and the shipper body, after negotiation, got a standstill for 1972 and a 7.5 per cent increase in 1973.

There are heavy increases in shipping costs. One of the big increases has been in the area of stevedoring charges. At the Australian end, there has been a 40 per cent increase in the costs of stevedoring in recent years. The allegation that Australian shippers are at the mercy of overseas monopolies and cartels is not quite true because it is the Government’s policy to strengthen the negotiating position of Australian shipping. This is a policy now being adopted by an increasing number of other countries. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act requires shipowners to negotiate with shipping bodies, to provide to shippers Information which is reasonably necessary for the conduct of negotiations and to permit an officer of my Department to be present at such negotiations and to give consideration to any suggestions made by him. This Bill further strengthens exporters’ negotiating capacity and ensures that shipowners of liner trades must negotiate rates of freight and conditions of carriage with the Australian Shippers Council, which will have a permanent, full-time secretariat and research facilities.

On the question of Australia’s own shipping line, the Government reintroduced Australian flag vessels into our overseas shipping services in, I think, 1968. The, Restrictive Trade Practices Act protects the rights of efficient Australian flag operators to enter our overseas trades. Australian owned and privately owned Australian flag vessels are now operating in 4 of our overseas trades. The Government extered into overseas trades to secure experience in new technology and modern ship management and a window into conference operations and costs. This window is used by the Government to keep conferences honest. All the vessels introduced have been modern and technologically advanced. Such vessels demand massive capital investment. One vessel of the Exporter class could cost $25m with containers. With the recent delivery of the ‘Australian Exporter’ the Government’s initial programme is nearing completion and the evaluation of the benefits of the involvement which could be gained by Australia having its own shipping line is now possible. Plans for further expansion can be considered after a soundly based and proven evaluation of our experience and the benefits from operating such a service.

The Restrictive Trade Practices Act is claimed by some as being nothing more than a paper tiger. Certainly in the area of shipping and conference lines that is not true. It is a very effective instrument in enabling sound negotiations to take place. Determining the complex freight rates and other arrangements for overseas carriage of Australia’s diverse exports is properly a matter for commercial negotiation between exporters and shipowners. Government policy has been to strengthen the negotiating position of shippers to ensure meaningful negotiations. This will be furthered by the provisions of this Bill. Shipowners already are obliged by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to negotiate with shipper bodies, to provide reasonable information, to permit a government officer to be present at such negotiations and keeping him informed of progress and to give consideration to his suggestions. Infringement of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act by conference failure to meet any of the above obligations requires the Minister to consult with parties to the conference and if no satisfaction can be obtained then the matter has to be referred to the tribunal for public inquiry and report. If the tribunal agrees that there has been a breach of the conference agreement, the conference may be disbanded. Then there is no conference, no dual right for freights and the possibility of a fine of up to $50,000 - one of the heaviest fines imposed by the Commonwealth Government. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) mentioned that an alternative Labor government would bring about the establishment of a commission to handle such negotiations. I should imagine it would be similar to the Federal Maritime Commission that operates in America.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I did not mention the United States of America.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Opposition spoke of a commission to handle negotiations.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I did not mention United States.

Mr ANTHONY:

-I take back the words United States’. Such a commission could be similar to the Federal Maritime Commission in the United States which does this sort of work, But it has not been found necessary, certainly in Australia, to have a similar organisation to handle our shipping regulations and negotiations. As I have already mentioned, under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act Australia has legislation which places the onus for negotiation where it belongs - with the shipper and the shipowner.

The formation of the Australian Shippers Council ensured that shippers have access to expert advice and facilities. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides for sanctions where necessary. The establishment of regulatory agencies, such as a commission, could lead to the establishment of a layer of bureaucracy and cumbersome administrative legal procedures. In America the Federal Maritime Commission has 20 separate sections in its central office. Any complaint has to be processed through a formal legal hearing system which often takes years before it is completed. The Australian system of commercial negotiation, backed by Commonwealth legislation, appears to be the most appropriate for our circumstances at this time.

I should like to make one final remark in relation to the allegation that the Australian Dairy Produce Board lost $300,000 by not going outside the conference line to negotiate shipping arrangements for the north bound area - into South Bast Asia and Japan. I think the honourable member for Newcastle was referring to the Orient Overseas Line - OOL - which offered a 10 per cent reduction on what the north bound conference offered. The honourable member and the House should know that the OOL does not serve Japan, nor could it give a guarantee of sufficient refrigerated space in ships going to South East Asia - to such areas as Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Philippines. For this reason the Australian Dairy Produce Board signed with the conference. It did not lose $300,000 as a result of not accepting the OOL proposition. It probably saved itself $300,000 because it would not have got nearly the service and would not have been provided with a guaranteed service which an industry such as the dairying industry, with a highly perishable product, needs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3047

CHILD CARE BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 October (vide page 2295), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– Firstly, the Opposition regrets the unavoidable absence of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) who is unable to be present because of a bereavement in the family. We would like to express our sympathy to the Minister in his bereavement and to say that we understand why he is not here, much as we regret his absence which of course means his inability to explain clauses of the Bill that we will be discussing. However, that cannot be helped and we would like to say that we consider the reasons for his absence to be entirely sufficient and deeply regrettable.

To the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, I move the following 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 lo the Bill, is of the opinion: (a) that the Commonwealth Government should take the initiative to establish Child Care Centres to meet the needs of working mothers, and should do this on a basis of priorities, to give maximum advantage to a maximum number of families, rather than leave the provision of this service to the chance interest of employers and local authorities, and (b) that Child Care Centres should be within the province of the Department of Education and Science, and should be part of a pre-school system developed progressively throughout the nation’.

I think it is clear enough what we members of the Opposition feel is a weakness in the Bill. In some ways, it reminds one of the beginnings of education in Britain. Nobody would have opposed Shaftesbury’s Ragged Schools, but they were hardly a substitute for a national education Act which came later. Nobody would want to oppose the development of these sorts of ad hoc child care centres attached to industries where the employers perhaps are enlightened enough to want them or are competing for the labour of married women and want to create this as an additional attraction. But, in the words of our amendment, the Opposition feels that the Commonwealth should be taking the initiative to establish child care centres to meet the needs of working mothers and should do this on a basis of priorities, instead of leaving it to the chance enlightenment of various employers or local authorities.

In the Committee stage of the Bill, too, we have a number of amendments to propose, all of which are designed to strengthen what one might call the standards of the Bill; especially, for instance, to clause 11. Clause 11 provides, in sub-clause (2.):

The rate of a grant payable under this section in respect of a child care centre is an amount per quarter equal to the sum of the following amounts:

There is then laid down a long formula. We believe that sub-clauses (2.) and (3.) should be omitted and a new sub-clause (2.) should be inserted which would provide:

The rate of a grant payable under this section in respect of a child care centre is an amount necessary to staff centres at standards acceptable to the Child Care Standards Committee.

In other words, we want to make this Child Care Standards Committee really authoritative in the legislation. When I am explaining some of the major amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill, I will stress those points. We believe that this Child Care Standards Committee should also meet certain requirements. For instance, clause 14 (1.) at present provides:

The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the Child Care Standards Committee, which shall consist of such number of members as the Minister thinks fit.

Clause 14 then goes on to lay down the functions of the Committee. We would like to be very clear about this. We shall move, in the Committee stage, for the substitution of the following sub-clause:

The Minister shall appoint persons with qualifications in pre-school education, pediatricians, psychologists, educationalists and child psychiatrists.

Our proposed new sub-clause (IB.) states:

Members of the Child Care Standards Committee shall be appointed for 3 years and be eligible for re-appointment.

We also propose a new clause 18 which states:

Members of committees established under section 16 of this Act - which sets up various subcommittees - which sets up various sub-committees- shall be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Child Care Standards Committee and shall hold office for a period to be iciermined by the Minister on the advice of the Child Care Standards Committee.

We have taken the trouble to specify the qualifications of the members of the Child Care Standards Committee - the professions from which they will come - whereas the proposals of the Government do not specify them, because we are very concerned about the quality of any Commonwealth action in this field. In our view, a child care centre is not an industrial convenience; it is part of a national education system. This is why we want the jurisdiction of the Department of Education and Science, not the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and National Service, to be over these centres.

The action of the Government, of course, is due to a change in the labour pattern in Australia. Thirty-five per cent of the married women of Australia are now working and 25 per cent of the married women of Australia who are working have children under the age of 6 years. The Minister for Labour and National Service pointed this out in his second reading speech, lt seems to us that there are some dangers in the whole Australian pattern of labour. The industrial revolution in Britain was made possible by shifting peasants, very often displaced by the enclosure movement, into the factories. We have been shifting peasants from the Macedonian hills and flying them to Australia to work in Wollongong factories. As Professor Dunphy of the University of New South Wales pointed out in his Boyer address over the radio not so long ago, we are thereby repeating the experience of the English industrial revolution.

These people do not have experience in trade unionism. They have not taken action against their conditions, where they are unsatisfactory, through trade union action, but they have taken action with their feet: they have walked out of the factories. They go to other jobs as soon as they become experienced in the country. There has developed a tendency to obtain a labour force either from inexperienced peasants imported under the Commonwealth immigration scheme - Professor Dunphy quoted an employer as saying to him: ‘If new Australians cease to come in, where will we get our labour for these sorts of industries?’ - or, as an alternative from married women who go into industry, even if they have young families, because of the sheer need for a double income in the circumstances in which the lower income groups find themselves.

The Minister for Labour and National Service said very carefully that he made no moral evaluation of the fact that women go into industry. Of course, if one makes a moral evaluation, one may have to investigate what are the factors that are forcing them to go into industry. For instance, one may find that the Australian structure of hire purchase, which I think very largely operates at usurious rates of interest and from which the Commonwealth Banking Corporation quite wrongly has been excluded when it could have been used as a weapon to keep down the cost of hire purchase credit, is a factor pushing people to obtain a second income in the borne. But 1 do not want to quarrel about that.

This legislation represents a Commonwealth incursion into what we regard as a field of education as well as child care. In other amendments which we are proposing we are specifying that these centres should be conducted on standards which are worthy of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth never developed any pre-school structure in the Australian Capital Territory on an ad hoc basis, and in our opinion it has no right to go into the States or the factories of this country and establish any of these centres on an ad hoc basis either. They must be established on a completely scientific basis. That is why we want the Commonwealth not to be merely tagging behind like somebody saying: ‘We are to start a centre and we have done certain things that qualify for the grant’. We want the Commonwealth to take its responsibility in society. Here is an emerging problem - the problem of women working in industry - and the Commonwealth has to take the initiative to establish child care centres where there is the greatest need. Suppose somebody employing a great number of married women or a local government authority does not happen to be interested in developing child care centres. Under this legislation there will be no Commonwealth action in the field. The Commonwealth comes in as a secondary and derivative force. In our view it should come in as an initiating force, examining where the needs are greatest.

An interesting constitutional question is involved in all this: If this is an exercise of power over labour, where does the Commonwealth get the power? The Commonwealth has no power over direction and conditions of labour. This has been rejected at a number of referendums. The Commonwealth, of course, has a power to grant educational benefits, and that is why we believe this power should be firmly founded by taking action under the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science. Although I am not suggesting that anybody is particularly likely to challenge it, we do not think that as an intervention in industry under some purported industrial power the

Commonwealth action is soundly based. That is an additional reason for adopting the approach which we desire.

I will be speaking on various of our amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill, and consequently I will not elaborate on those points now. I simply come back to the point that, firstly, we believe the Commonwealth should take the initiative, beginning in areas where there is the greatest need, to assist most mothers. Secondly, we believe that the standards should be those which are worthy of the Commonwealth. That is why we propose that the persons sitting on the committees which will determine the standards are of the highest qualifications. That is the sort of committee we want to safeguard the interests of the children. That is the purport of our amendments. That would be the approach of a Labor government in this matter. We believe it ought to be the approach of any Commonwealth government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Reynolds:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak - in this Parliament, I hope.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– The amendment to the Bill moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) is based on a misconception of what the legislation is all about, what it is designed to do. This is shown by the reference in the amendment to leaving the ‘provision of this service to the chance interest of employers and local authorities’. The legislation is not directed to employers. A child care centre run by an employer or factory would not be necessarily ineligible for assistance under this legislation, but the terms of the legislation make it unlikely that any employers in fact would be prepared to comply with the criteria applying to eligibility for assistance. In the first place a trust would have to be set up to run the child care centre. In the second place the child care centre would have to be opened to children other than those of employees at the factory. The third criterion, of course, is that it would have to grant priority of entry to those children in special need, ‘special need’ being defined in the Bill. So the criticism of the legislation on the ground that it is directed towards the chance interest of employees is based on a fundamental misconception of it.

The second main point made by the honourable member for Fremantle was that the Commonwealth Government should act as an initiating force. I think that was the expression he used. This is of course quite consistent with the Opposition’s policy for a schools commission. Indeed, I believe that part of its policy is for a pre-school commission as well. The Government takes the view that we aim to maintain the maximum amount of local interest, community interest and interest of organisations which in many cases have dedicated themselves to this form of child care. We aim to help those who are prepared to help themselves. It is not our policy to set up a large, purely government run series of institutions for child care.. That is a basic matter of difference in philosophy between us on this side of the House and the Opposition.

So the amendments proposed by the Opposition are not acceptable to the Government and indeed are not validly related to the intent of the legislation itself. The provision of child day care, centres of an approved standard is a major Government initiative, and the Government is prepared to allocate significant funds to meet this end. It is envisaged that in the first 3 years of this scheme at least $23m will be expended on capital and recurrent grants, and at least another Sim will be expended on grants for the purpose of research and evaluation in the area of child care. Probably a greater proportion of money is devoted to research in this field than under any other legislation brought down by this Government. This is a new field. Research will be needed, and we. hope that this country will become a leader in research in this area.

Through its initiative the Government will solve a serious community problem which relates to the needs of today’s community and which is reflected in the rising proportion of married women in the work force. The proposed scheme is concerned with the welfare of children, with particular emphasis on the welfare of those children in special need of alternative care while their parents are working, sick or otherwise unable to care for them. As the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) said in the second reading speech, the Bill provides a number of grants in the child care area. There are 5 types. Two are recurrent, 2 are nonrecurrent capital-type grants, and the final type consists of research grants, which I mentioned a moment ago. The recurrent grants are towards the salaries of staff and in respect of children in special need. The non-recurrent capital grants are to cover the cost of buildings and land and the purchase and installation of equipment.

I reiterate the major features of thew>. various grants. The recurrent grants side of the scheme provides for recurrent grants of 2 types to be paid to eligible organisations operating child care centres on a non-profit basis and meeting the other conditions of the grant. One type of recurrent grant is in respect of the employment of certain qualified staff in child care centres. The grant would equal half the salaries payable to these staff, and the intention of the grant is to encourage the employment of such staff in specified numbers in the centres. The staff concerned are qualified preschool teachers and qualified nurses as defined in the Bill.

The other type of recurrent grant is in respect of children in special need of such care, such as children of single parents, of migrants in the early settlement stages, of parents eligible for assistance under the subsidised health benefits scheme and of parents who are sick or incapacitated. The grant will be calculated according to the number of hours the children in special need are cared for in the centres. The purpose of the grant is to provide the organisation operating the centre with funds with which the organisation can offer reduced fees to parents in financial need. The capital grants side of the scheme provides for unmatched capital grants to be paid direct to eligible organisations for, firstly, the purchase, erection, extension or alteration of buildings, including necessary fixtures and land cost, for use as a child care centre; and. secondly, the purchase and installation of equipment for use in child care centres. The purpose of capital grants is to ensure that sufficient child care facilities of good quality are available where they are needed most.

The research grants side of the scheme provides for the grant to be made to any person for the purposes of research in child care and related matters and for the initiation and development of methods of child care. Honourable members will recall that in the Minister’s second reading speech he outlined the conditions that would attach to capital and recurrent grants. These conditions go to the heart of the Government’s intentions in this scheme. The main conditions of grant are that centres must be operated on a non-profit basis; that centres must accept applications for the enrolment of children in special need in priority to other children; and that centres should be operated for sufficient hours and in such a way as to meet the needs for child day care in the community in which they are situated.

I wish to say a concluding word about the organisations that are eligible to receive assistance. With respect to recurrent grants and capital grants for equipment, organisations eligible to receive assistance are nonprofit organisations as determined by the Minister - other than Commonwealth or State controlled bodies - local governing bodies; and trustees of charitable or benevolent trusts. To be eligible to receive a capital grant in respect of land, buildings or improvements, the organisation must also be a corporation in which, or trustees in whom, there is vested or is to be vested the land associated with the subject of the application for grant. Finally, this scheme will provide real practical assistance and be of benefit at several levels. Firstly, for children being placed in child care centres there is the direct advantage of better quality care and better facilities. It is hoped that the very introduction of the Government’s scheme will contribute significantly to the upgrading of standards generally in the child care area. Secondly, for parents to whom child care fees are a hardship there will be direct financial relief in that reduced fees will apply where they place their children in the assisted centres. Thirdly, for the community as a whole there will be an extension and upgrading of an invaluable community service supportive of the family and the community generally.

It is the Government’s intention to establish the Child Care Standards Committee referred to in the legislation as soon as possible after the legislation is passed by this Parliament. This will enable full consideration to be given to projects seeking assistance, after which the Committee will make recommendations to the Minister as to which projects it considers merit support. The recurrent grants under the scheme will be payable from the date of royal assent and by early next year the capital grants side of the legislation is expected to be in full operation. This legislation breaks new ground. It is an exciting initiative, providing yet another example of the Government’s determination to meet emerging community needs in a rapidly changing society. I emphasise again that it is directed towards the welfare of children, especially those who face disabilities which could affect their full development as individuals. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I formally move the 18 amendments which have been circulated in my name. They refer to clauses 4, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20 and 21 which read in part:

Clause 4. 4. (1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - child care’ means the care of pre-school aged children at a time or times during the day when they are not being cared for in their own homes or in the homes of other persons; child care centre’ means a place where child care is provided for only those children who are residing in their own homes; eligible organisation’ means -

  1. an organisation (other than an organisation conducted or controlled by, or by persons appointed by, the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State) that is carried on otherwise than for the purpose of profit or gain and is determined by the Minister to be an eligible organisation for the purposes of this Act;
  2. a local governing body; or
  3. the trustees for the time being under a trust established for charitable or benevolent purposes, being a trust in relation to which the Minister has determined that the trustees constitute an eligible organisation for the purposes of this Act, and includes -
  4. the trustee or trustees under a trust established by an organisation referred to in paragraph (a) of this definition or by a local governing body; and
  5. a corporation established by such an organisation or by a local governing body;

Clause 11.

  1. – (1) The Minister may, in his discretion, on behalf of the Commonwealth, make a grant of moneys to an eligible organisation, in respect of each child care centre operated by the organisation at the rate ascertained in accordance with this section.

    1. The rate of a grant payable under this section in respect of a child care centre is an amount per quarter equal to the sum of the following amounts:
    1. in respect of each 10 places or part of 10 places at that child care centre filled on the specified day in that quarter by children under the age of 3 years - an amount equal to the prescribed proportion of the amount of salary or wages payable during that quarter to one nurse who is employed at that child care centre and is specified by that child care centre for the purposes of this paragraph;
    2. in respect of each 20 places, or part of 20 places, in excess of the first 20 places at that child care centrefilled on the specified day in that quarter by children of or above the age of 3 years - an amount equal to the prescribed proportion of the amount of salary or wages payable during that quarter to one nurse who is employed at that child care centre and is specified by that child care centre for the purposes of this paragraph;
    3. if fifteen or more places at that child care centre are filled on the specified day in that quarter by children of or above the age of 3 years - an amount equal to the prescribed proportion of the amount of salary or wages payable during that quarter to one teacher who is employed at that child care centre and is specified by that child care centre for the purposes of this paragraph;
    4. if more than the prescribed number of places at that child care centre are filled on the specified day in that quarter by children of or above the age of 3 years and the Minister, in his discretion, determines that an amount should be payable under this paragraph - an amount equal to the prescribed proportion of the amount of salary or wages payable during that quarter to so many of the teachers who are employed at that child care centre as the Minister determines. (3.) Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding sub-section, for the purposes of calculating an amount under that sub-section in respect of a quarter, the salary or wages payable to a particular nurse or teacher shall not be taken into account more than once in respect of that quarter. (4.) For the purposes of this section, the number of places at a child care centre filled by children on a day shall be calculated by ascertaining the number of hours during which each of those children attends at that child care centre on that day, by adding together the numbers so ascertained and by dividing the result by 8. (5.) lit this section - nurse’ means a person who has -
    5. the prescribed qualifications and experience in connexion with nursing; or
    6. such qualifications and experience as. in the opinion of the Minister, are equivalent lo the qualifications and experience so prescribed; quarter’ means the period of 3 months commencing on the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July or the first day of October in any year; salary or wages’, in relation to a nurse or a teacher, means salary or wages at the rate fixed by an award, order, determination or agreement made or having effect under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or, if no such rale is applicable, the rate of salary or wages determined by the Minister; teacher* means a person who has such qualifications as are recognised by the Australian Pre-school Association as being sufficient for a pre-school teacher; the specified day’, in relation to a quarter, means a day in that quarter specified by the Minister, nol being a day that is a public holiday or a school holiday.

Clause 12. (I.) In this section - child in -.pedal need’ means -

  1. a child other than a child who normally resides with both parents in the same household;
  2. a child either of whose parents commenced to reside permanently in Australia for the first time within three years before the date of the application for the enrolment of the child at the child care centre concerned;
  3. a child either of whose parents is a contributor in respect of whom section 82s of the National Health Act 1953-1971 applies or is a person in respect of whom a determination under section 82u of that Act is in force; or
  4. a child either of whose parents is sick or incapacitated; (2.) The Minister may, in his discretion, on behalf of the Commonwealth, make a grant of moneys to an eligible organisation, in respect of each child care centre operated by that organisa tion, at the rate of an amount per week ascertained in accordance with the formula ab -f cd, where - a is an amount determined by the Minister in relation to children who have not attained the age of 3 years, not exceeding the prescribed amount; b is a number calculated by ascertaining the number of hours during which each child in special need, being a child who has not attained the age of 3 years, attends at the child care centre during that week and by adding together the numbers so ascertained: c is an amount determined by the Minister in relation to children who have attained the age of 3 years, not exceeding the prescribed amount; and

Clause 14. (lj The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the Child Care Standards Committee, which shall consist of such number of members as the Minister thinks fit.

Clause 18.

A member of a committee shall be appointed by the Minister and holds office during the Minister’s pleasure.

Clause 20. (i.) A grant under this Act may be made upon such terms and conditions, nol inconsistent with this Act, as the Minister thinks lit. (2.) Before a grant is made under this Act, the Minister may require the grantee to enter into an agreement with respect to the terms and conditions upon which the grant is to be made and to give security for the carrying out of the agreement. (3.) An agreement under the last preceding subsection may include provision for the repayment of the whole or part of the grant to the Commonwealth in the event of a breach of the agreement. (4.) An agreement under this section relating to a grant under Part II. or Part HI. shall include a condition that the child care centre in respect of which the grant is payable -

  1. shall accept applications for the enrolment of-

    1. children in special need, within the meaning of section 12 of this Act; and
    2. children whose circumstances are such that, in the opinion of the Minister, the children are in special need of child care, in priority to applications relating to other children; and

  2. shall provide child care on such days and during such hours as the Minister determines.

Clause 21. (1.) The Minister may, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing under his hand, delegate to the Secretary to the Department of Labour and National Service all or any of his powers under this Act, except this power of delegation.

I move:

  1. In clause 4, in the definition ‘child care’, omit ‘in their own homes or in the homes of other persons’, insert ‘in their ordinary place of residence’.
  2. In clause 4, in the definition ‘eligible organisation’, omit ‘(other than an organisation conducted or controlled by, or by persons appointed by, the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State)’.
  3. In clause 4, after paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘eligible organisation’, insert the following paragraph: (aa) an organisation conducted or controlled by. or by persons appointed by, the Government of the Commonwealth.’.
  4. In clause 4, in paragraph (d) of the definition ‘eligible organisation’, after ‘established’, insert by or under the law of the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or’.
  5. In clause 11, sub-clause (1.), omit ‘ascertained in accordance with this section’, insert necessary to meet its recurring cost’.
  6. In clause 11, omit sub-clauses 2 and 3, insert the following sub-clause: (2.) The rate of a grant payable under this section in respect of a child care centre is an amount necessary to staff centres at standards acceptable to the Child Care Standards Committee.’.
  7. In clause 11, sub-clause (4.), omit ‘ascertaining the number of hours during which each of those children attends at that child care centre on that day, by adding together the numbers so ascertained and by dividing the result by eight’, insert ‘a formula specified by the Child Care Standards Committee and approved by the Minister’.
  8. In clause 11, sub-clause (5.) in paragraph (b) of the definition ‘nurse’, omit ‘in the opinion of the Minister, are equivalent to the qualifications and experience so prescribed’, insert ‘are acceptable to the Child Care Standards Committee and approved by the Minister’.
  9. In clause 11, sub-clause (5.), in the definition ‘salary or wages’, omit ‘or, if no such rate is applicable, the rate of salary or wages determined by the Minister’, insert ‘as determined by the Public Service Board and approved by the Minister’.

  10. In clause 12, sub-clause (1.), after paragraph (d), insert the following paragraph:

    1. a child who suffers from physical or mental handicap or other disability;’.
  11. In clause 12, sub-clause (2.), page 7, omit Minister’ (twice occurring), insert ‘Child Care Standards Committee’.
  12. In clause 14, sub-clause (1.), omit ‘may’, insert ‘shall’.
  13. In clause 14, after sub-clause (1.), insert the following sub-clauses: (1a.) The Minister shall appoint persons with qualifications in pre-school education, pediatricians, psychologists, educationalists and child psychiatrists. (1b.) Members of the Child Care Standards Committee shall be appointed for 3 years and be eligible for re-appointment.’.

  14. In clause 18, omit the clause, insert the following clause:

    1. Members of committees established under section 16 of this Act shall be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Child Care Standards Committee and shall hold office for a period to be determined by the Minister on the advice of the Child Care Standards Committee.’.
  15. In clause 20, sub-clause (1.), omit ‘as the Minister thinks fit’, insert ‘as the Minister determines upon the recommendations of the Child Care Standards Committee’.
  16. In clause 20, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: (5.) Upon the closure of a child care centre such property as has been provided by the Commonwealth shall remain the property of the Commonwealth.’.
  17. In clause 21, sub-clause (1.), omit ‘Secretary to the Department of Labour and National Service’, insert ‘Secretary to the Department of Education and Science’.
  18. After clause 21, insert the following new clause: 21a. The Minister shall as soon as possible after the close of each financial year lay before each House of Parliament a report on the administration and operation of this Act.’.

As the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) has stressed that this scheme breaks new ground and is experimental, I am surprised that there is no provision in the measure for an annual report to Parliament as to how it is operating. Therefore I have moved the amendment to include a new clause 21a so that a report will be tabled.

A minor amendment, but nevertheless an important one, which I have moved is for the provision that upon the closure of a child care centre such property as has been provided by the Commonwealth shall remain the property of the Commonwealth. The continued existence of some of these places may be doubtful and the Opposition feels that that needs to be satisfied. Clause 21 of the Bill provides that the Minister has power to delegate all his powers - except the power of delegation - to the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service. The Opposition believes that this power of delegation should be exercised in favour of the Secretary not of the Department of Labour and National Service but of the Department of Education and Science.

Clause 18 contains specifications about the members of a committee to be established under this Part. Various committees will do work presumably for the Child Care Standards Committee. The Opposition wishes to specify that members of committees established under section 16 of the Act shall be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Child Care Standards Committee - which, as I have mentioned, we will ensure is a scientific and qualified body - and that they shall hold office for a period to be determined by the Minister on the advice of the Child Care Standards Committee. The Opposition is not happy about the approach which puts this matter under the Department of Labour and National Service. We want to safeguard the standards of concern for the children.

I also draw attention to the amendment to clause 14. As it stands, clause 14 reads:

  1. – (1.) The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the Child Care Standards Committee, which shall consist of such number of members as the Minister thinks fit. (2.) The functions of the Committee are -

    1. to give advice to the Minister and to eligible organizations in relation to standards to be maintained in the construction and equipment of child care centres and in the service provided in child care centres; and
    2. to give advice to the Minister on any other matter referred to the Committee by him in connexion with the administration of this Act.

We believe this must be spelt out in a way which will safeguard the interests of the children much more clearly than that. That is why we have moved the addition of the following new sub-clauses to clause 14: (1a.) The Minister shall appoint persons with qualifications in pre-school education, pediatricians, psychologists, educationalists and child psychiatrists. (1b.) Members of the Child Care Standards Committee shall be appointed for three years and be eligible for re-appointment.’.

We believe that our amendment if accepted, will safeguard the standards of the Child Care Standards Committee and will ensure that the standards that it adopts are likely to be educationally sound and scientifically valid.

We believe also that there should be inserted in clause 12 (1.) a new paragraph (e). There are various formulas for calculating the number of children who are receiving assistance and this leads to a mystic formula that the amount per week ascertained to run the organisation be accordance with the formula ab + cd. Clause 12 (2.) continues:

  1. . where - a is an amount determined by the Minister in relation to children who have not attained the age of three years . . . b is a number calculated by ascertaining the number of hours during which each child in special need . . . attends at the child care centre . . . c is an amount determined by the Minister in relation to children who have attained the age of 3 years . . . d is a number calculated by ascertaining the number of hours during which each child in special need, being a child who has attained the age of 3 years, attends at the child care centre . . .

Our tenth amendment seeks to insert in subclause (1.) after paragraph (d) the following paragraph:

  1. a child who suffers from physical or mental handicap or other disability;

These children need to be considered. So we have spelt out this type of child as being one who comes within the need of special care.

In clause 11, lines 2 and 3 on page 7, we seek the deletion of the words ‘or, if no such rate is applicable, the rate of salary or wages determined by the Minister’ and the insertion of the words ‘be as determined by the Public Service Board and approved by the Minister’. We feel that this is analagous to other sections of people employed by the Commonwealth or whose employment is affected by decisions of the Comwealth. In clause 11, between lines 27 to 30, we believe that the following words should be omitted: ascertaining the number of hours during which each of those children attends at that child care centre on that day, by adding together the numbers so ascertained and by dividing the rate by eight’.

Our amendment proposes to insert the words: a formula specified by the Child Care Standards Committee and approved by the Minister.’

We dislike the tendency of the Government to disappear into the realms of mathematics. We would rather have the human decision about the standard to be determined by the Child Care Standards Committee and approved by the Minister,

In clause 11 we seek to have struck out sub-clauses (2.) and (3.), which are terribly wordy, and to insert this simple proposal: (2.) The rale of a grant payable under this section in respect of a child care centre is an amount necessary to staff centres at standards acceptable to the Child Care Standards Committee.

In another place in clause 11 where there is one of these formulas we feel that what ought to be specified is the amount ‘necessary to meet its recurring cost’. I have outlined the amendments to clause 11. The purport of the other amendments is to make sure that there is direct Commonwealth responsibility in this matter. As I have said before, we dislike the sort of derivative or secondary action that the Commonwealth takes in a matter as important as this. For the reasons I have put I have moved the 18 amendments en globo.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– The 18 amendments moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) really are of 2 kinds. The first kind are those which are related to the centralist concept, that is, that the Commonwealth Government virtually should set up a socialised form of child care centres. I dealt with that argument during my remarks following the speech of the honourable member for Fremantle at the second reading stage. This Government, of course, rejects that concept. The ninth amendment, which of course is consequential upon that, is the amendment which refers to the salaries or wages as determined by the Public Service Board. Under the legislation which has been brought forward by the Government the salaries of the people who will run the child care centres will not be paid by the Commonwealth and of course the Public Service Board in that sense is irrelevant; but is not irrelevant to the centralist concept put forward by the honourable member for Fremantle. That is one type of amendment contained in the 18 amendments moved by the Opposition.

The other type of amendments contain, if I may say so to the honourable member, many good ideas. I point out to the honourable member that although he has stated that in his opinion he would like to have them specifically spelt out in the legislation many of his suggestions can be accepted and put into practice without amendment to the Bill. I can assure the honourable member that the suggestions he has made in this second type of amendment will be brought to the attention of the Minister and they will be given careful attention during the setting up of the Child Care Standards Committee. 1 am sure that when this scheme gets into operation and the honourable member sees the members who will be appointed to that Committee many of the fears which he voiced at the Committee stage will be allayed.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– 1 support the 18 amendments which have been moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). I only regret, if I may say so very briefly, that all this half baked legislation shoud be pouring through the House in this indecent way. I regret it very much and I am sure that the community will not benefit by this kind of procedure. The first amendment will, if accepted, have the effect of including in clause 4 children in orphanages as being eligible to go into these kinds of centres. We see no reason why these centres should be restricted to people residing in normal homes or residences. Our second amendment to clause 4 seeks to omit that part of the clause which reads ‘other than an organisation conducted or controlled by, or by persons appointed by, the Government of the Gommonwealth or of a State’. What the Government is doing under this clause - we would like to have it remedied - is to abdicate proper responsibility for a very important educational purpose in the community. The Government would, I presume, never think in this day of relying completely and solely on voluntary initiative and voluntary effort in secondary or primary schooling or for secondary education or for any other segment of education; but for some reason the Commonwealth has abdicated responsibility in regard to pre-school education and what is more, it finds no place for State governments in the provisions under this Bill.

It is readily seen, I am sure, that this Bill is focussed on the employment of women in the work force. That has been given away by the simple fact that the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) rather than by a welfare minister, such as the

Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That is the give-away to the whole of this Bill. It is not only a halfbaked measure but it is focussed in absolutely the wrong direction. The direction of focus is of getting women into the work force rather than care and consideration for young children. Why should the Government be concerned in the way this Bill so much emphasises? Why should its concern be so much with the children of mothers who are in employment? Surely it is very important that the children of mothers who are not going out to work should also be catered for.

It is readily recognised in all forms of modern psychology and psychiatry that a child’s early years are very important in its emotional character and personality development. Perhaps I could talk about this at another time because I do not have the chance to expand upon it at the moment.

So what the Labor Party is trying to do at this belated stage is to get the Commonwealth to come back and to accept responsibility. We do not by any means say that this should be a monopoly responsibility or that even in co-operation the States and the Commonwealth should have a monopoly responsibility. We are quite happy to se; the Commonwealth subsidising voluntary effort, but we think it is entirely wrong that the Commonwealth should rely so completely on private initiative. We all know it will be a matter of chance whether a local government body or a private organisation will come forward and take on this responsibility, particularly in the areas of greatest need, i think that what the Government is proposing is a complete abdication of responsibility by the Commonwealth in this matter. Therefore the honourable member for Fremantle has moved to clause 4, on behalf of the Opposition, amendment No. 3 which reads: . . after paragraph (a) of the definition of eligible organisation’, insert the following paragraph: (aa) an organisation conducted or controlled by, or by persons appointed by, the Government of the Commonwealth.’

This gives the Commonwealth the opportunity either to take the initiative in setting up pre-school educational facilities and child care facilities - and I would hope after-care school facilities as well - or to empower other organisations such as State governments to take on this type of responsibility as well.

The Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) labelled the purpose of the Opposition’s amendment - and I think I am quoting his words - as socialised and centralised control. I am glad then that there is this difference between the Government and the Opposition. We are not prepared to see the development of this facility inhibited by a sole reliance on voluntary effort. People who are in the field of voluntary effort - and I talk to them quite often - very greatly regret In many cases that this responsibility has been thrust upon them in lieu of action by responsible governments. What this Bill sets out to do is regretted by them as much as by us. The question has been put to me: ‘What voluntary organisations can with confidence set about establishing a pre-school centre, because organisations are not to know whether or not they will come within the early provisions set out under this Bill? How are they to know whether they will be on the priority list? An organisation at Oatley in my own electorate raised this issue with me yesterday. I was asked: ‘Can you say whether we would be eligible?” How the devil can I tell them whether the> will be eligible? Priority will be given in the first year of the operation of this scheme which will cater for only about 50 centres. Just imagine, 50 centres over the whole of Australia. The Government could provide the $4.8m allocated in this Bill to a couple of municipalities in Sydney alone without talking about the whole of Australia. Yet this amount is to be provided for one year. The Minister for Education and Science only earlier this year said that it would cost SI 60m to provide pre-school educational facilities all over Australia in line with what obtains here in the Australian Capital Territory. That is just how miserable this provision is.

The Commonwealth opts out of any direct responsibility. It opts out of giving any authority or assistance to the State governments to provide for child care facilities. Only about less than one-tenth of the people estimated in 1968 to require this kind of assistance will be provided for in the early years of the operation of this proposal. That is why the legislation before us is such an inadequate measure. Unfortunately we have not the time or the opportunity in this debate to discuss whether it is such a good thing anyway for mothers to go to work, especially when a child is in the first couple of years of its life. Quite a deal of debate is going on in this field outside of the Parliament. However, this Parliament will not have the chance to discuss such a measure. There is no provision in the legislation for alternative arrangements in regard to proper child care facilities. There is no provision, for example, for helping in an informal way in private homes, where trained people could go in and look after a number of children in a professional but rather informal way. There is no indication of what part parents themselves might play in regard to pre-school education by going along to a community centre and helping those who are already professionally trained for this purpose.

The Bill also stipulates ever so rigidly what the formula will be in regard to what the child-teacher or child-nurse ratio shall be. If I remember correctly the. ratio is one in twenty for nurses and one in fifteen, or part thereof, as far as professionally trained teachers are concerned. The simple fact is, of course, that some of the people who will be most needful of pre-school education and care will be mentally and physically handicapped children. Surely the Government has. been told often enough already that it would be unrealistic to adopt such a ratio in the case of these young people; that they would need a ratio at least two times better than that. The whole proposal is so rigid. The Government says that the Minister may set up the child care standards committee but it does not say that he shall. This aspect of the Bill is the subject of one of our amendments. The whole Bill is riddled with ministerial discretion, even in regard to what organisations will get financial assistance. In many other places in the Bill there is provision for ministerial discretion - decisions at the whim of the Minister. The Labor Party wants to see the Government at least come up with a proposal to give real power to the child care standards committee. There are many other things which I would have liked to have said about this inadequate Bill but unfortunately time will not permit any further comment.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– I rise to oppose the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). The honourable member moved the amendments in toto and therefore I oppose them in toto. There is a certain logic moving them together, because most of them directly and indirectly stem from the amendment moved by the honourable member during the second reading stage of the Bill. The entire difference of approach between the Opposition and the Government - and this has been confirmed by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) - is this; What the Opposition envisages is a perfect theoretical system. It assumes that what someone has written in a book can be conceived ideally and in abstract and that by starting completely on a blank page we can write in precisely what we think would be the complete solution to the problem that is faced. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) emphasised that this really is a measure to meet some practical problem that has already arisen - the problem of coping with the number of working mothers whose children have to be cared for while they are at work. The Bill is not designed to entice more mothers into the work force or to discourage them. It is designed to cope with what is a direct practical problem.

The honourable member for Barton said that the Bill is restricted to the children of working mothers. In fact, it is not so restricted at all, and alternative methods of child care are not excluded. The Bill provides for moneys to be made available for research into possible alternative methods and for support for the development of alternatives. But the Bill very wisely allows us to build on what already exists. It is all very well to have some theoretically perfect system in our minds, such as presumably the honourable member for Barton has in his mind, and then to proceed on this basis to set up a child care standards committee. As the honourable member for Fremantle outlined, these would be staffed purely by qualified people. We would go around - I doubt whether we could find them - and collect the people with Ph.Ds who have gone through academic institutions, such as those beloved by the honourable member for Barton, passed examinations and got some qualifications. They are the people who would determine the standards and virtually force their policy, by means of their amendments, on the Minister. I do not believe that these people exist. There are a good many in the community who have done a good deal of practical work in this field and some of them have qualifications of some academic character. But these people would be very difficult to find and if the honourable member for Fremantle had the immediate practical task of staffing these committees he would not be so emphatic in requiring these qualifications.

What this Bill does is pick up what is being done and, unlike what the honourable member for Barton suggested, this is not confined to voluntary bodies. Naturally it makes special provision for those bodies because they are the people, de facto, who know about the problems, who live with the people to be assisted, who work with them and they will no doubt continue to do so. The Bill also involves local authorities and trusts and provides for the study of alternative methods of doing things. It is based on the arrangements which already exist and helps those already engaged in this field. Far from starting straight away with a clean sheet and a wonderful theoretical system which embraces everybody and everything, it will be difficult to move along. It will be difficult to get going in the time the Minister outlined. For instance, there is the provision of up to $5m in this financial year. Any organisation starting now and effectively spending in proper ways $5m by the end of this financial year will be working at an incredible rate.

I hope that the Department will be able to appoint these people quickly. We have already learned that it has advertised the positions. The people who will fill these positions are largely those we will depend on for getting the scheme going and I hope that the Department and those who will be appointing these people will not have to wait the normal dilatory time taken by the Public Service Board to make effective appointments because if this scheme is to get under way it has to be done quickly. Basically I oppose this large number of amendments because they stem mainly from part (a) of the amendment already moved. The honourable member for Fremantle and the honourable member for Barton both expressed some disapproval of the idea that this scheme should be under the competence of the Department of Labour and National Service, although looking after the children of working mothers is not the scheme’s only purpose. However, this is what gives rise to it. As 1 well know, in that Department there is a body of knowhow which has developed. A lot of the initial research work was done by this Department and taken a considerable distance.

Undoubtedly what is provided under this Bill is a social service, or could be readily defined as such, in which case the power of the Commonwealth is undoubted. The honourable member for Fremantle and the honourable member for Barton propose that it should be under the Department of Education and Science but I would have thought that from a constitutional point of view this would have been a far more dubious ground on which to rest. Apart from that what is proposed seems to me to be a job which is being undertaken to a considerable degree now but which needs research by and suggestions from people who are presently involved rather than the appointment of a purely academic body to control it. I am rather appalled by the idea that some universal department of education should be established forever after to have vague control over every child of 3, or whatever the minimum age should be, and be their mentors rather than the control being exercised by the Department of Labour and National Service which has practical experience of the dreadful problems faced by mothers. This is the place to put the control and for these reasons I oppose the amendment.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I thank the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) for disagreeing with the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). The Minister specified that these amendments, which related to the standards of the Child Care Standards Committee - the educational qualifications of its members - were worthy of respect and would be considered and could be implemented under the existing legislation. The honourable member for Wentworth has chosen to disagree with those parts. However, nobody has mentioned our proposed addendum to the Bill in clause 2Ja - that there be furnished annually a report to Parliament. With a holy light in their eyes honourable members have been referring to socialism. This is a social action of the Commonwealth Government. It is a Government action and, by the standards of Cobden which are probably similar to those of the honourable member for Wentworth, it is socialism if the Government does anything at all especially in relation to children in the factories. It was one of his charges against Shaftesbury when Shaftesbury had some provisions about protecting children in the factories that it was socialism. That does not answer anything. If there is anything sinister about a Ph.D., this Government in conjunction with Slate governments in spending $896m on universities over the next 3 years and if university training is a disqualification, is doing something which has no purpose. It is quite amazing.

However, we are not suggesting that every staff member at kindergartens, pre-schools and child care centres should have a Ph.D. It might not be a disqualification if some of them have it. A person is not necessarily an idiot if he ls a Ph.D. The point is that we desire the standards of the child care committee which is to determine how these places are nin to be set by experts in the education of young children - psychiatrists and paediatricians, who I understand have medical qualifications. Their qualifications would be germane to the work that they would be doing. One can caricature this by saying that we are proposing that everybody on this Committee have a Ph.D. which would be as scrupulous a method of debate as if 1 were to suggest that all the honourable member for Wentworth wanted staffing the committee were Squeers and Sarey Gamp. This would be a caricature of the viewpoint that the honourable member really has but no more a caricature of the viewpoint than the honourable member chose to attribute to this side of the Committee. We do not dispose of what we are saying about the standard of this Committee by referring to Ph.Ds. I thank the Minister for noting that some of these sug gestions could actually be implemented under existing legislation and he proposes to draw attention to our suggestions.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– As the amendments have been moved by the Opposition in globo I will have to oppose them in globo although I, like the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street), can see some real merit in some of the suggestions contained in the amendments. 1 would just like to draw attention to what the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has said in amendment 13 dealing with the appointment of persons with special qualifications. One of the problems encountered when one starts detailing these qualifications is that one often misses out people or areas of qualification which should necessarily be included. 1 would imagine that any responsible Minister not only would be looking at suggestions such as those contained in the amendments but also would be looking at other fields germane to this area of education.

The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) took the Government to task. He said that the legislation was brought in only as a means of getting more women into the work force. I reject that suggestion categorically. I think that the Government deserves to be praised for the introduction of this legislation. Although we can argue about the merits of women in the work force, whether they should leave children at home or at some other place and at what age they should leave their children, there is no doubt at all about the existence of the problem. The fact is that about 35 per cent of all married women in Australia are employed at present and the percentage is rising. The situation is not peculiar to Australia. It is repeated in many other advanced countries and I believe that the proportion of working mothers will continue to rise as women see their role in life as embracing more than just being married and raising a family.

The honourable member for Barton gave the impression that the Bill is concerned only with children of working mothers. Of course that is not so. It is a Government initiative to improve and extend child day care facilities for mothers who for a variety of reasons may need care for their children during the day. It is of particular concern to mothers who go out to work but it is also of importance to women who are sick or incapacitated. These people will have a particular need for such child care facilities. The scheme is not confined to the children of working mothers but the emphasis is in that direction. Not only mothers are involved in the implications of the scheme but also many fathers who for one reason or another have the responsibility of bringing up their children will welcome opportunities for the worthwhile care of their children during the day.

The Government is providing a basic community service concerned with the proper care of children and the needs of the family and the community generally. Like my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) I reject the concept that the Commonwealth should take over the whole area of provision of child care centres. I believe it is correct and appropriate that we should provide opportunities for interested groups to build the types of child care centres which they see as their real need, containing the sorts of facilities that they want. These people have a better idea of how this should be done than has a bureaucracy located in Canberra.

I reject the concept of the Commonwealth’s taking over this role. Honourable members will be aware that the centres are to be operated by local government bodies. This is a very appropriate function for them. Benevolent trusts, welfare organisations, parent bodies and other groups will be involved. When I first heard about the child care si-heme some time ago I had some very real misgivings about whether it should be proceeded with simply because I was tremendously concerned that the facilities should go to more than just child care, that they should have a very real educative function as well.

I am very pleased to know that the Government has consulted the College of Psychiatrists on the possible effect on children who will be looked after in these facilities. The advice received from the College has been taken very much into consideration. It is also pleasing to know that trained nurses and educators will be present, although I am somewhat concerned that the age at which children will be allowed to attend the centres should be very closely assessed. It may be just a personal idio- syncracy, but I have very much in mind that a very young child should remain for as long as possible with his mother. I do not like to think of very young children having to be set aside from their mothers. Obviously the relationship between mother and child should be encouraged to develop. Like the Government, I acknowledge that the problem does occur in which mothers of very young children in certain circumstances inevitably go out to work. In that event facilities should be provided to enable them to do so.

A number of other aspects of the Bill and the amendments proposed by the Opposition could be referred to at length. However, I will conclude by saying that rather than honourable members opposing this Bill they should give the Government great credit for displaying initiative which not only will fill a great need in the care of children but will also do so in a manner best suited for their maximum development and progress in the future.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– I wish to answer a few points raised by various speakers in the debate. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) said that the scheme had been left to chance and that in areas of great need it could be that there would be no applicants or organisations willing to run the child care centres. I can assure the honourable member that there is no sign of any lack of applications. It will be a considerable job to assess the priorities but there is no problem in getting applications from organisations. The honourable member also asked whether the scheme is a good idea anyway and whether it should be implemented. I can assure the honourable member that in the very substantial sum set aside for research precisely that sort of question will be considered when viewing alternative forms of child care.

The honourable member for Barton also expressed some doubts about the wide powers of ministerial discretion. I remind him that this is an entirely new field and in that circumstance it is obviously wise to allow the maximum possible degree of flexibility. If rigid standards were laid down in the legislation it is almost certain that in an emergent field like this a straightjacket would be put around the legislation and there would be inhibitions placed on the introduction of changes which might come to be desirable.

The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) returned to the question of an annual report to the Parliament. I concede to him that his idea would be entirely consistent with his concept of a centrally controlled Commonwealth body to run such centres, but it is not appropriate in this instance.

Mr Beazley:

– We do not run the universities or colleges of advanced education but we table their annual reports.

Mr STREET:

– With all respect to the honourable member, this legislation is a different approach altogether. The honourable member knows the criteria for eligibility. In many instances the centres will be operated by local organisations which in no way can be compared to university councils or the councils of colleges of advanced education. In those circumstances an annual report would not be appropriate. It would not be appropriate to establish a situation in which an annual report was made to Parliament on just one of the many facets of the activities of the Department of Labor and National Service.

The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) made a valuable contribution. I am sure he did not mean that experts as such would not be acceptable on the Child Care Standards Committee. I think the honourable member was trying to say that certainly experts have a place, but let us have ordinary people as well on the Standards Committee. Do not let us have these bodies composed entirely of experts. Let us try to obtain a cross section of the community on them. I am sure that is what the honourable member is trying to get across.

The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) raised the question of very young children. I am sure that everybody would agree that the best place for a very young child is with its mother. But the plain fact is that in many instances the lack of high standard child care is disadvantaging many young children. This legislation is designed not to take very young children away from their mothers but to provide a high standard of care for those who, for one reason or another, are denied that normal right of young children.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– It is sheer arrogance for the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) and those sitting behind him to give the impression to the Committee this afternoon that they know everything about everything. The great fault of this Government is that it is the know-all Government all the time. Having been here since 1946, I have known a few governments. I have seen and watched them in action. This is a know-all government, the biggest know-all government of all time.

The Opposition has moved a series of responsible amendments to a new Bill, the provisions of which have not been tried before and have not been put to the Parliament before. Government members have the sheer, colossal arrogance to stand on their side and to tell us that we do not know what we are talking about. Our committees have given a tremendous amount of work to this subject As a matter of fact, honourable members would see that we were thinking of it long before the Government was, if the chronology were known. To charge us specifically that, because we wish to establish a pre-school commission, we wish tocontrol this child care concept like some octopus or some Federal colossus is just sheer humbug. We have no such intention at all. The only purpose of this commission would be to co-ordinate the work of the private organisations that we and the Government wish to help. We must not let the Government get away with the idea that the Opposition wishes to establish a dictatorship which will control this scheme from Canberra. We have no such intention. I leave that thought with the Committee before it votes on our amendments.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3063

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 October (vide page 2769), on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill and the Seamen’s Compensation Bill, as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that you might permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed on this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)Is it the wish of the House that this procedure be adopted? There being no objection, 1 will permit that course to be followed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition is disappointed that the Government, having gone so far along the road towards the Australian Labor Party’s objective in respect of workers compensation, decided to stop at the 26-mile post and go no further. It seems quite absurd to me that a government which can recognise the justice of full wages during compensation for incapacity up to 26 weeks should say that once a person has suffered 26 weeks of incapacity, beyond that point he can go no further but must revert to ordinary weekly wages which, even with the amendments proposed by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), will amount to only $43 a week for a single man and $54 for a man with a wife with an additional $5 a week for each child. The Opposition cannot agree with this concept. Nonetheless it is pleased to note that the Minister has seen the justice of its policy in respect of 26 weeks of a person’s incapacity. However he does not seem to understand that the short-term incapacitations are not the ones that call for the greatest amount of help and financial assistance. It is the man who is incapacitated for long periods who really needs more money and for a longer period than docs the person whose incapacity puts him out of business for only a short time.

When we reach the Committee stages I will move some amendments covering some 10 pages of printing but representing, because they have been clustered together into clauses, a total of 9 separate amendments. With the concurrence of the Committee I propose to move all amendments in globo and to have a vote taken on the one resolution that all of the amendments be agreed to. The Opposition will seek to change the definition of ‘child’ so that the definition will be broader than is now provided in the Act. It will seek to widen the definition of ‘dependant’ so that it will be wide enough to cover anyone who is, in fact, dependent upon the breadwinner or the injured worker. It will not matter whether the person is related. It could be a sister, a mother-in-law or a mother - anybody who is dependent on the injured worker. A widow who was dependent on the deceased worker should be entitled to compensation. The Opposition rejects the concept that it is proper to pay a lump sum amount to a widow or dependent widower and walk away from the scene saying: ‘1 have done all I need to do’. The Opposition believes that there is a moral obligation to provide for the widow of a worker who is killed in the course of his work and her children as though the worker were still alive. The Opposition completely rejects the concept of a total lump sum amount in the case of death and will propose that where a widow is left with dependent children she will continue to receive the same weekly pay week by week that she would have had coming into the home had her late husband remained alive. This will go on so long as she has dependent children. As soon as she no longer has dependent children it is proposed that she should receive a weekly amount equal to 75 per cent of the amount which her husband would have earned had he remained alive. I believe this is the only civilised, humane, sensible and reasonable approach to the whole question.

The Opposition will propose the same in the case of permanent incapacitation. The amount of compensation will not be limited to full earnings for only 26 weeks as is now proposed. I wish that the Minister would wake up for a moment while I am talking.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am entirely awake.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister seemed to be snoring. If he can snore while he is awake, he is better than I am. What the injured worker should receive is the full amount of the earnings he would have received but for his injury for the whole period of the incapacitation. If he is totally incapacitated for 20, 30 or 40 years he should still be paid the amount that he would have received but for the injury. Further, we see no justification for saying to a worker who is totally incapacitated as a consequence of the loss of 2 eyes that because he is getting weekly payments he cannot get the lump sum amount which the legislation provides for the loss of 2 eyes. The Government’s proposal says that he is entitled to a lump sum amount for the loss of 2 eyes but if the Loss of his eyesight caused him to be totally incapacitated he should get no lump sum at all but a weekly payment for life. The weekly amount that the Government provides for the first 26 weeks is not, in some cases the amount that a person would earn had he been still employed because it does not take overtime into account. It is based upon the person’s entitlement under the sick leave provisions of his award or determination and overtime is not included.

The Opposition’s amendment will define average weekly earnings. He will be entitled to get average weekly earnings, not some amount that he would be entitled to as sick leave. Average weekly earnings will be defined in accordance with the Victorian legislation. It is important that we stay with the definition in the Victorian legislation because, as in all new fields of legislation, an Act is readily understood only after there has been a fair amount of case law surrounding it. The Victorian definition of average weekly earnings has been interpreted by the courts to mean what everybody knows it means. For that reason the Opposition adopts that definition and is disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to do likewise.

It is absurd to be prescribing fixed amounts for anything - whether it be for death or for the loss of any limb, organ, eyesight or anything else - because, as money values change, there should be some automatic provision to ensure that the compensation which is payable to a person rises or falls automatically with the value of money. Consequently the Opposition amendment adopts this formula.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was saying, prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner, that it is quite absurd to fix a lump sum amount for a widow whose husband has been killed in an accident at work or going to work and to say to that widow: We will pay you $14,500 and then, so far as we are concerned, you can sink or swim. We could not care less. Neither do we care for your children, once we have paid a miserable lump sum to them’. It is also absurd to say to an injured worker: ‘If you are injured and permanently incapacitated, the only amount that you will receive after the period of 26 weeks will be that which is prescribed by the Act’. This could be only one-quarter of the amount that he would be earning, but for the accident.

The Opposition places no limit on the amount that a person should receive while he is suffering incapacitation due to injury sustained at work or while travelling to work. The person who earns $150 a week still has the same commitments whether he is at work or whether he is lying on his bed at home or in hospital. It is absurd to think that a person should receive less than he normally would have received but for an accident. There is nothing novel about paying people the full amount of wages which they would have earned but for an accident. This principle operates in the Electricity Trust of South Australia where a full make-up pay system operates. It operates in respect of power house employees in Sydney. It operates in the building trades, and 1 was pleased to notice that the Minister for Social Services was impressed by what his friend, Pat Clancy, and others were able to achieve in the building industry in obtaining a full make-up pay system.

But why stop at 26 weeks? This is the thing that staggers me and leaves me almost speechless - not quite, but almost. I think that we are still living in the Dark Ages. Our attitude to this kind of thing is the attitude of the 17th century. We have not become enlightened to the point that the authorities are even behind the Iron Curtain or in Arabia or anywhere else where the Arabs live. Some of them are further advanced than we are. Some of the Latin American countries are further advanced than we are. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are further advanced than we are. They pay the full amount of workers compensation during periods of incapacitation. Even Mexico, a country that is very poor by our standards, does not expect that a person who is injured can live on less.

Mr Brown:

– What about Uganda?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not know about Uganda, but that would be the sort of place where I would expect the honourable member’s chief interest to lie - in the standards which operate in Uganda. I am obliged to the honourable member for Diamond Valley for the interjection because this approach to the matter is the sort of approach that one would expect in Uganda. I thank him. But it is not the kind of approach that one would expect in an enlightened civilisation such as our own.

Our proposal is that a widow who is left with children relying upon her should continue to receive the same weekly payment, while those children are dependent upon her, as she would have received from the breadwinner but for his accident. ‘Dependant’ will mean a child who is dependent on the mother for its education or who is not self-supporting. So, if a child were going to university, its university education would not have to be interrupted just because its father was killed in an accident at work. The Minister for Social Services is going backwards and forwards between the table and his advisers. He is so staggered by the truth of what 1 am saying that he cannot believe it is true. So he must keep going backwards and forwards and saying: ‘Surely that is not true’. Of course, his advisers have to assure him that it is true. When 1 introduce a Bill next year to give effect to the amendments which I am now proposing, I hope that the present Minister for Social Services will show a more enlightened attitude towards this matter. I have the authority of my Leader to announce here tonight that, as soon as the elections are over, if a Labor government is elected, it will introduce a Bill to give effect to all the things which, tonight, the Minister will use his authority in the House to force a division upon and to force his members on party lines to reject. But we do not have to wait very long. There is hope for the Commonwealth employees because early next year a Bill will be introduced by which all the things I am talking about will come into being. Is that not worth fighting for? Of course it is.

The lump sum amount which the Government will pay a widow under this Bill is to be a miserable $14,500. That is what she will receive - $14,500. The Government will then turn its back on her and say: ‘We have paid our debt’. What utter rubbish! How could the Government pay its debt to a widow? She might be a very young widow with years of her life in front of her and she might remain a widow for 20 or 30 years. We believe, however, that if a widow remarries she should be entitled to a cut-off payment of 104 times the weekly payment that she would have received under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill. But, in addition to that, in order that the man she marne:; does not have to maintain the children of her first marriage, we would provide that weekly payments must continue to be paid in respect of each child at a rate equal to not less than one-sixth of the amount which the widow would have been receiving but for her remarriage. Another point that I would like to make here is that under our proposal all widows will be deemed to be dependent whether they are or not. A widower also will receive compensation if in fact he was a dependant of the deceased worker. So, we have looked at this from every point of view.

I can never understand why the Government thinks it is possible to do justice to people by specifying a fixed sum of money, being that amount of money which the Government uses for ascertaining the lump sum payments by applying a percentage to that sum of money. So, in order to meet the rise and fall of the purchasing power of money we have written into our amendment an escalation clause which will automatically adjust the total amount to which scheduled injuries are related by multiplying the national minimum wage for the particular city by 520, which would give for the city of Sydney a total sum of $26,936 compared to $14,500 which is proposed to be paid by the Government. It is more than double that amount. Is it too much? Of course it is not, because the total amount - the $26,936 - would apply only to a person who lost both eyes, both hands, both feet, a foot and a hand or the power of speech. If a person suffers those kinds of injuries, surely he is entitled to an amount of not less than the $26,936 to which I have referred.

The other great anomaly in the Government’s proposal is that, if a person is totally incapacitated as a consequence of the injuries to which I have just referred or, for that matter, any other injury, he receives no total lump sum payment if he qualifies for a weekly payment for life under the provisions of the Bill. He is entitled to both because the compensation about which we should be talking is the kind of compensation that would be recoverable in common law actions for damages where 100 per cent negligence could be proved against the employer. We must cut out altogether this idea that there is such a thing as partial culpability or total culpability.

I am sorry to have to refer again to another matter contained in the Bill. This relates to the amount of compensation provided under the Bill for the loss of one’s reproductive organs or the capacity to engage in sexual intercourse. Why is the Minister so oblivious of the difficulties that are suffered by people who suddenly discover that as a consequence of an accident they are no longer able to engage in sexual intercourse. Has he lost interest in this side of life altogether? Does he not care any more about the plight of a young man who suffers this terrible injury. Let him take his mind back 40 or 50 years. Would he have been prepared in those days to accept a miserable $7,250? I am pleased to see you laughing, Mr Speaker. I assume that you would not accept it. Like you, we say it is too little and that the amount to be paid should be not less than the $13,450 which the Labor proposal would give having regard to the percentage of the special compensation provided for in our Bill.

We are not satisfied with the way that the Government’s Bill and the existing Act deal with the loss, or the loss of use, of a faculty, an organ or some part of the body not elsewhere covered, because unless the loss of a faculty, an organ or some other part of the body is specifically referred to in the Bill the person suffering the loss gets nothing. It might be damage to the spleen, to the gall bladder or to some other part of the body. It might be some internal damage which imposes upon the person suffering it a lifelong agony and disability. There is nothing in the Act as it now stands to give any unfortunate person in this category any extra amount. In the case of partial incapacity we believe that the obligation ought to be upon the employer to try to find another suitable job, and if another suitable job cannot be found at the same rate of pay the obligation should be upon the employer to make up the difference between the rate of pay that the injured person is receiving for the job which is found as a substitute for his earlier job and the amount he would have received had he still been employed in his normal occupation.

I will say to his credit that the Minister has given a great deal of attention to the question of vocational training. It is important that we do everything possible to try to restore people who are designated as permanently or totally incapacitated so that they regain health and strength. I do not take anything away from the efforts that he has made to deal with the important aspect of rehabilitation, but I part company with the Minister on the score of what happens when a person earns something as a consequence of the rehabilitation. If we really want to encourage people to be rehabilitated we ought to say to them: ‘As far as we are concerned, you are a write off for the rest of your life. We will treat you as totally incapacitated, but if you are prepared to be rehabilitated we are prepared to give you all the facilities for rehabilitation. If you can earn a partial salary or a full salary, that is a bonus for you’. It is far better having everybody employed as a useful, self supporting, dignified, proud member of society than it is to have everybody forced by virtue of a penalty incorporated in the present Act to shrink from rehabilitation. We should not subtract from a person’s compensation entitlement anything that he might earn through rehabilitation. In other words, what we are saying is that the amount of compensation payable under the workers compensation legislation should be at least the amount which a person can recover in a common law action for damages where he can prove full negligence against the other party. But whereas in any common law actions the worker would receive a lump sum payment for the loss of earning capacity plus a lump sum payment for pain and suffering, we would see that he got a lump sum payment for pain and suffering - that would be an amount as high as $26,000 - and in addition he would receive weekly payments for life instead of a lump sum in lieu of weekly payments. Even though a Commonwealth employee would normally have to retire at 65 years of age, under this proposal of ours he would continue to receive his full compensation until he died, even if he lived until he was 75 years of age.

We will not oppose this Bill; we will allow it to go through. It brings some improvements, lt brings in for the first time the right to full wages for the first 26 weeks. I am sorry that the Minister stopped at 26 weeks. I was hoping he would have grasped the nettle and would have applied the principle of full compensation during the whole period of the employee’s total incapacity. The Bill increases the weekly payments, and that is something. The weekly payments have been increased so that a man can get $43, with another $11 for his wife and another $5 for each child. But it is far better to do the thing properly and give him complete justice by giving him the full amount of what he has lost. For those reasons we will support the Bill.

In conclusion, although a Labor Government, if elected in the elections to be held in December, will bring in a Bill along the lines of the amendment that I am now moving, it will be treated only as a stop gap measure. It will give to every Commonwealth employee, no matter in which State he is employed, the benefits that I have just enunciated. But then we will not regard ourselves as having completed the job; we will not rest on our oars. We will go through the Bill completely. We will go through the Bill from beginning to end to see that all the anomalies are removed. Why should we not cover everybody in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and at the North West Cape, all Commonwealth employees wherever they be employed, waterside workers, seamen and anybody else engaged in interstate trade and commerce? Why should they not all be covered by the one Act? Why should we have one Act for Commonwealth employees, another Act for seamen, another

Act for the North West Cape, an ordinance for the Northern Territory and another ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory? Why can they not all be made uniform and brought into one Act so that we would not have the present useless, stupid paperwork and we would not have to engage in a cognate debate to deal with 3 Bills when we ought to be covering all by one. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the sympathetic hearing you have given me. 1 sincerely hope that the law I have enunciated tonight will be on the statute book and operating before this time next year.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Having listened carefully to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), I think it would be very difficult to elaborate further on his remarks because he has covered this Bill very well, as he should do, because he is very knowledgeable on these matters. I notice that the Government has provided no speakers to follow the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Therefore the Government must be fully aware of the deficiencies of this legislation. The honourable member for Hindmarsh finished on the point that we have numerous Acts dealing with this subject and that cross references must be made in an endeavour to find out who is covered by which Act and which Commonwealth employee finds himself covered in many places. The definitions in the legislation are very sloppy. They are open to misinterpretation and do not see people as the community sees them. As has been explained by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, in the original Act a dependant is simply described as the spouse, father, mother, step-father, step-mother, step-daughter and so on whereas there is a much broader and deeper interpretation of the term dependant’.

As I see it, people become employees not of their own choice; they become employees because of economic circumstances. They sell part of the time that belongs to them through the day to someone else in return for money which, in turn, they use to solve their economic problems. Because of the situation that exists I can never go along with the proposition that a person who is injured whilst doing that should ever stand in any worse position than if he had not been injured. Yet the very legislation that is before this House for amendment tonight does exactly that. The Bill which the Government has introduced says that remuneration for an employee who has been injured during the course of his employment: . . docs not include a reference to a payment in respect of overtime or a reference to an allowance that is intermittent or is payable in respect of special expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the employee in respect of his employment.

As I see it - I can be corrected if I am wrong - -if an employee becomes injured the purpose of the Bill is to take that employee back to his standard award wage. It is a known fact in industry that not very many people work for an award wage. The overtime, as provided in the Bill, applies to time worked on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. It makes no mention of any time worked in excess of the recognised hours of employment a day. So if an employee, prior to his injury, consistently works a number of hours in excess of 8 a day, or whatever number of hours his day may consist of, and he is earning a rate over and above his standard award wage, the Bill apparently does not regard that as overtime, it regards overtime as any duty on shifts or on Saturday, Sunday or other holidays, and excess travelling time. The principal Act does not mention overtime at all.

As I mentioned, an employee does not become an employee of his own choice. Rather, it is a condition thrust upon him by economic circumstances. As the only way in which he can resolve his economic circumstances is to find himself in the employ of another person - in this case the Commonwealth - I cannot be convinced that because things happened to him and injured him whilst in the employ of another person he should stand in a different position. The philosophy applied by those who prepared this legislation, and all compensation legislation, is bad. The only attempt - I trust that after the end of this year it will be on the statute book - that has ever been made in this country to reconcile that philosophy with the situation that exists is the rather voluminous document that was prepared by the honourable member for Hindmarsh and submitted as an amendment to the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill which was discussed last year. But this Government has seen fit not to incorporate all of the amendments that were suggested, lt has taken only some.

This Bill which purports to rectify the situation makes the situation even worse, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh said. The language used in the Bill is not very precise. In my opinion, it has been hastily prepared, lt should nol be accepted by this Parliament and incorporated into the Act because of the effect it would have on so many working people in this country. I know that my colleague the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) wishes to make some comments on this Bill and, in deference to him, I will conclude on that note so that the time that was unofficially available to me will be available to him to make his contribution.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) for his kind remarks. The principal thought that emerges from the Bill as it has been presented to the House by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) is that it does not go far enough. It accepts the traditional concept of workers compensation. It is worthwhile in the 5 minutes that have been graciously allowed to me by the Leader of the House-

Mr Chipp:

– ‘Not guilty.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It has been put to me that I may pay you that compliment. It is worth reflecting on how we compensate people in our society. If you fall off a ladder while painting your own house you will receive nothing. The best you can hope for is some incidental benefit pursuant to our rundown system of social services. If you are injured on your way to work, coming home from work or at work you will receive the benefits that the Minister seeks to confer on you pursuant to this piece of legislation. They are at a higher scale and a higher standard. If in a lottery-like way - that is what it comes to - you can establish something that the law calls negligence, against some person you will be compensated at a much higher scale. There are 3 ascending scales at which people can receive benefits or compensation if they receive injuries. Those scales are unrelated to anything that is rational or logical in any modern system of government or society.

What is the difference if you are on your way to work or coming home from work that would entitle you to a higher scale of reward than if you are at home mowing your lawn or painting your house? What difference does it make, given our system of compulsory third party insurance, that you can point to someone’s negligence, which is usually a legal fiction, and receive full compensation? What benefit comes to any community when you have a system whereby insurance companies jostle each other to force one claimant out of one category and into another so that he makes his claim against one insurance company and not another or against one insurance fund and not another insurance fund, or when one plaintiff tries to make his claim against a workers compensation fund instead of, say. a negligence fund and then is driven back to social services?

The litigation and the inefficiency in the whole system are notorious. Heaven knows what it costs the Australian community in lost effort. Doctors who waste time in courts, in workers compensation tribunals, and lawyers who waste their time there add enormously to the. significance of the social cost. This Bill is paying lip service to an ideal that was a progressive measure in the 19th century. Today it is out of date. Even if one looks at workers compensation in the context of what it is, one sees a distrust of human beings. When he made his second reading speech the Minister used quite extravagant language. He said how happy he was. He talked about great improvements and about the Government breaking entirely new ground. It is just nonsense, and it is hypocritical in the language which was used. What has to be accepted as flowing from it is that the Government refuses to compensate people for what they have lost.

There is a case that the Minister may be aware of; it is called Smith v. McErlane. It was decided in the High Court of Australia in about 1962. It was not a unanimous decision of that Court. There were 3 judges in favour of the decision and one dissenting judgment but that decision said that when you consider what a man has lost and you compare his post-accident earnings with his pre-accident earnings you take into account what he earns by way of overtime afterwards and discount it by what he earned before. So that if he had a salary or a wage rate of say$70 a week before the accident and was earning $30 overtime - taking home $100 - and after the accident he dropped back because of his partial incapacity to $50 a week but gets $20 a week in overtime, making a total of $70, he is $30 a week worse off. Under the workers’ compensation laws which we have he gets nothing even though he has lost $30 a week. That much criticised principle is perpetuated in this legislation. The Minister seems to see nothing wrong with it. In fact he knows that it exists because he referred to it in his second reading speech. But all he said was: ‘We are lifting the pay out rate a little and we hope that it will not encourage people to stay off work sick when they are not sick’.

But implicit in what he said is that he does not trust employees whether they be employees of the Commonwealth or not, notwithstanding the language that he used, because he is not prepared to grant them full compensation as has been said by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) to be the policy of the Australian Labor Party. He is not prepared to do that. He has said in some way: ‘You cannot trust them.’ A person may have lost an arm or a leg or an eye but according to the Minister you cannot trust him to stay off work because he may want to be a malingerer. I suppose that there is something in Liberal Party thinking which produces that kind of result but it is a kind of thinking, I would suggest that is completely rejected on this side of the House. We accept that if a man is injured and incapacitated or if a woman is injured and incapacitated that person should be adequately and properly compensated for the loss and should not have to depend upon a lottery-like system like being able to bring themselves within the category of workers’ compensation, inadequate as it is, or the negligence category lottery-like as it is.

One could go on but those are the principal objections I make to this Bill. It reproduces a pattern that we have become familiar with. It does not deserve the extravagant language used by the Minister. It needs a lot of amendments to bring it up to date even within the framework and context of the workers’ compensation legislation. But surely we have reached the stage in this country where we could move beyond the idea of workers’ compensation and start to think about compensating all Australian citizens when they are injured.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I now propose formally to move in globo the amendments standing inmy name. I have already talked about them and explained them so there is no need for me to recapitulate. The amendments refer to clauses 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 which read:

Clause 4.

Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the definition of “medical treatment”, the following definition: “ ‘overtime’ includes -

  1. any duty on shifts or on Saturdays, Sundays or other holidays; and
  2. excess travelling time;”.

Clause 7.

Section 39 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (11.) the words “any of the last four preceding sub-sections,” and inserting in their stead the words “sub-section (6.) (7.), (9.) or (10.) of this section,”.

Clause 8.

Section 45 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by inserting after sub-section (2.) the following sub-sections: “ (2a.) Notwithstanding the last preceding sub section, but subject to the succeeding provisions of this section if the prescribed amount applicable to the employee under the next succeeding sub-section in respect of a week, being one of the first twenty-six weeks of the period, or of the aggregate of the periods, of the incapacity, is greater than the amount of compensation that would, but for this sub-section, be payable tohim in respect of that week under the last preceding sub-section (including sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of this section, if applicable), the amount of compensation payable to him in respect of that week is that prescribed amount. “ (2b.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, the prescribed amount applicable to an employee in respect of a week is -

  2. in the case of an employee who is. during that week, employed by the Commonwealth under conditions of employment providing for sick leave payments - an amount equal to the sum of -

    1. the sick leave payment that he would receive in respect of that week if, during that week, he were entitled to, and were granted, sick leave on full pay by reason of an illness that is not attributable to an injury in relation to which this Act applies; and
    2. the amount, if any, that was payable to the employee under the next succeeding section in respect of the week that ended immediately before the commencement of the period of the incapacity or, where there are two or more periods of incapacity, the last of those periods;
  3. in the case of an employee who is not employed by the Commonwealth during that week, but was, immediately before he ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth, employed under conditions of employment providing for sick leave payments - an amount equal to the amount that would be applicable to him under the last preceding paragraph if he had continued in that employment; or

  4. in any other case - an amount determined by the Commissioner, having regard to the following:

    1. if the employee is, during that week, employed by the Commonwealth - the amount of the earnings, if any, payable to him in respect of that week in respect of that employment:
    2. if the employee is not, during that week, employed by the Commonwealth - the amount of the earnings, if any, that, if he had continued in the employment in which he was engaged immediately before he ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth would have been payable to him in respect of that week in respect of that employment; and
    3. any other matter that the Commissioner considers to be relevant. “(2c.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section -
  5. an employee who would be, or would have been, employed but for his incapacity shall be taken to be employed, or to have been employed, as the case may be;
  6. a reference to a sick leave payment is a reference to a payment by way of salary, wages or pay in respect of a period during which the employee concerned is absent from his employment by reason of illness; and
  7. a reference to earnings, in relation to an employee -

  8. includes a reference to the earnings that would be, or would have been, payable to the employee but for his incapacity; and

    1. does not include a reference to a payment in respect of overtime or a reference to an allowance that is intermittent or is payable in respect of special expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the employee in respect of his employment.”; and
    2. by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words “the last preceding sub-section” and inserting in their stead the words “sub-section (2.) of this section”.

Clause 9.

Section 46 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (b) of sub-section (2.) the word “sub-section” and inserting in its stead the words “sub-sections (2a.) and”.

Clause 10.

Section 50 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) the words “in pursuance of this Act” and inserting in their stead the words “under a provision of this Act, other than sub-section (2a.) of section 45,”.

Clause 11.

Section 99 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting from sub-section (6.)the words “so much of”; and
  2. by omitting from sub-section (6.) all the words after the word “dependant” (second occurring).

Clause 13. (1.) The amendments made by this Act, other than sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, apply in relation to any weekly payments of compensation made in respect of a period occurring on or after the date of commencement of this Act notwithstanding that the compensation is payable in respect of an injury sustained, a disease contracted, or an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease suffered, before that date. (2.) Where, on or after the date of commencement of this Act, an employee -

  1. dies;
  2. suffers a loss of a kind referred to in section 39, 40 or 42 of the Principal Act;
  3. suffers facial disfigurement of a kind referred to in section 41 of that Act; or
  4. becomes liable for any cost of a kind referred to in sub-section (3.) of section 37 of that Act, the amendments made by this Act, other than sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, apply in relation to any compensation payable in respect of that death, loss, disfigurement or cost, notwithstanding that it results from an injury sustained, a disease contracted, or an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease suffered, before that date. (3.) The amendments made by sections 8, 9 and 10 of this Act apply in relation to -
  5. an injury the date of which is the date of commencement of this Act or a subsequent date; and
  6. the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease, the date of which is, by virtue of sub-section (2.) of section 29 of the Principal Act, to be deemed to be the date of commencement of this Act or a subsequent date. (4.) The amendments made by section 11 of this Act apply in relation to damages recovered on or after the date of commencement of this Act. (5.) Expressions used in this section have the same respective meanings as in the Principal Act.

I move:

  1. – Clause 4, omit the clause, insert the following clause: - “4. Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of ‘child in relation to whom this Act applies’ and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “child” means a son, daughter, grandson or grand-daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or child by adoption, or other child in the custody, care or control of the employee, who is not self-supporting, and includes a son or daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, who is born after the employee’s death;’;
    2. by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of ‘dependant’ and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “dependant”, in relation to a deceased employee, means the widow of a deceased person and such persons as were wholly, mainly or partly dependent upon the employee at the date of the death of the employee or would, but for the incapacity or death due to the injury, have been so dependent;’;
    3. by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the definition of ‘medical treatment’, the following definition: - “overtime” includes -
    4. any duty on shifts or on Saturdays, Sundays or other holidays; and
    5. excess travelling time;’;
    6. by adding at the end of sub-section (1.) the following definition: - “widow” in relation to a deceased employee includes a woman who, although not legally married to the employee, lived with him at the time of his death on a bona fide domestic basis and, in relation to a deceased aboriginal native of Australia or of a Territory of the Commonwealth not forming part of the Commonwealth, includes a person who was recognized as the wife of that aboriginal native by the custom prevailing in the tribe or group of aboriginal natives of Australia or of such a Territory to which that aboriginal native belonged.’;
    7. by omitting from sub-section (4.) the words other than sub-section (5.) of section 43’; and
    8. by omitting from sub-section (10.) the words ‘an impairment of speech of the employee referred to in sub-section (10.)’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘a partial loss referred to in sub-section (4.)’.”.

  2. – Omit clauses 7, 8 and 9, insert the following clauses: - “ 7. Section 25 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

    1. For the purposes of this Act, the average weekly earnings of an employee before an injury shall be calculated in accordance with this section: -
    1. a reference in the succeeding provisions of this section to earnings of an employee in relation to any employment shall be read as including a reference to any allowance payable to the employee in respect of that employment other than an allowance that is intermittent or is payable in respect of special expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the employee in respect of that employment;
    2. where an employee was, at the date of the injury, employed by the employer only in part time employment or in employment in respect of which the employee was not paid, any earnings of the employee from any other employment shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if they were earnings of the employee from his employment by the employer;
    3. subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, the average weekly earnings of an employee before the injury shall be calculated in relation to the period immediately preceding the date of the injury in which he was continuously employed by the employer but any part of that period that was earlier than twelve months before that date shall be disregarded;
    4. subject to the next succeeding paragraph, if, during the period ascertained in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the minimum amount per week payable to the employee in respect of his employment by the employer was varied as a result of the operation of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, or as a result of the making, alteration or operation of an award, order, determination or industrial agreement, or of the doing of any other act or thing, under such a law, so much of that period as occurred before the variation took place or, if there was more than one variation, before the last variation took place, shall be disregarded for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph;
    5. where -
    1. as a result of a variation in the minimum amount per week payable to the employee in respect of his employment by the employer, a period that occurred before the variation took place would, by reason of the last preceding paragraph, be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this section; and

    2. if that period were so disregarded, it would be impracticable to calculate the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, or the average weekly earnings as so calculated would not fairly represent the rate per week at which the employee was being remunerated in respect of that employment before the injury, that period shall not be so disregarded but the average weekly earnings of the employee during that period shall be taken to be the amount that would have been his average weekly earnings during that period if the variation had taken effect at the commencement of that period;

    3. if, during any part of the period in relation to which the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury are required to be calculated by virtue of the last three preceding paragraphs, the earnings of the employee were reduced, or the employee did not receive any earnings, by reason that he was absent from his employment owing to illness or otherwise, that part of that period shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this section;
    4. where, by reason of the shortness of the period during which the employee has been employed by the employer, it is impracticable to calculate the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury in accordance with the last four preceding paragraphs, or the average weekly earnings as so calculated would not fairly represent the rate per week at which the employee was being remunerated in respect of that employment before the injury, the average weekly earnings, as calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, from employment by the employer before the date of the injury of an employee who was performing comparable work shall be taken to be the average weekly earnings of the first-mentioned employee before the injury;
    5. subject to paragraph (k) of this section, if the minimum amount per week payable to the employee in respect of the employment by the employer in which he was engaged at the date of the injury would, if he had continued in that employment, have been increased -
    1. upon the attainment by the employee of a particular age; or

    2. upon the completion by the employee of a particular period of service, a reference in this Act to the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury shall be read as a reference to the amount that is, by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, to be taken to be the amount of those average weekly earnings, increased by the same percentage as the percentage by which that minimum amount would have been so increased if the employee had continued in that employment;

    3. subject to the next succeeding paragraph, where -
    4. the relevant employment of an employee is employment referred to in sub-section (4.) or (5.) of section 7, or sub-section (2.) of section 8, of this Act; and
    1. the employee is not in receipt of earnings from any otter employment at the date of injury, a reference in this Act to the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury shall be read as a reference to an amount determined by the Commissioner to be the amount per week that the employee would have been able to earn at the date of the injury (including any amount that he would have been able to earn in respect of overtime) if he had engaged in suitable paid employment;
    2. if the minimum amount per week payable in respect of employees included in a class of employees in which the employee was included at the date of the injury is increased or reduced on or after that date as a result of the operation of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, or as a result of the making, alteration or operation of an award, order, determination or industrial agreement, or of the doing of any other act or thing, under such a law, the amount that is by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, to be taken to be the amount of the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury shall be increased or reduced bythe same percentage as the percentage by which that minimum amount was so increased or reduced, as the case may be;

    3. in this section, “earnings” includes earnings in respect of overtime; and

    4. where the employee delivers to the employer a statement in writing verified by statutory declaration setting out the amount of his earnings during any period, that statement shall be prima facie evidence that that amount was the earnings of the employee during that period.’. “8. Section 38 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5.). “9. Section 39 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

    5. – (1.) Where an injury sustained by an employee arising out of, or in the course of, his employment is a loss specified in the first column of the table in sub-section (9.) of this section, a lump sum of compensation equal to the percentage of special compensation specified or referred to, in relation to that injury, in the second column of that table is, subject to this Act, payable to the employee. (2.) For the purposes of this section, special compensation is an amount calculated by multiplying the minimum weekly wage for adult males as fixed from time to time by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by five hundred and twenty. (3.) For the purposes of this section and the table in sub-section (9.) of this section, the permanent loss of the efficient use of a joint, organ, faculty, power, sense, limb or member, shall be deemed to be the loss of that joint, organ, faculty, power, sense, limb or member. (4.) Where an injury sustained by a employee arising out of, or in the course of, his employment is the partial loss of speech, eyesight, hearing, taste or smell, or of the use of a faculty, organ, limb, member or joint, a lump sum of compensation equivalent to such percentage of the amount of special compensation payable under sub-section (1.) of this section in respect of total loss of a similar nature as is equal to the percentage of the diminution of the efficiency of the faculty, sense, organ or part of the body concerned is, subject to this Act, payable to the employee. (5.) Where an injury sustained by an employee arising out of, or during, or in the course of, his employment is the loss of genital organs or the permanent loss of the capacity to engage in sexual intercourse or of the procreative function, the amount of compensation to be paid to the employee, shall be fair and reasonable having regard to the nature of the injury, the age of the employee, and any circumstances relevant to the injury or the consequences of the injury, but the amount of compensation shall not be less than

fifty per centum of, or more than the amount of, special compensation. (6.) Subject to this Act, the compensation payable under this Act in respect of an injury that is facial or bodily disfigurement to an employee is such amount of compensation, not exceeding the amount of special compensation, as is fair and reasonable having regard to the nature of the disfigurement, and any circumstances relevant to the injury or the consequences of the injury, and that compensation is payable to the employee. (7.) Where an employee sustains more than one injury in relation to which this section applies, he is entitled to payment of a lump sum of compensation equal to the aggregate of each lump sum payable under the preceding provisions of this section in respect of each of those injuries. (8.) The amounts of compensation provided in this section shall be in addition to any other compensation prescribed by this Act. (9.) For the purposes of this section, the table is as follows: -

“9a. Section 43 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

  1. – (1.) Where the death of an employee results from, or is contributed to by, an injury, compensation is payable in accordance with this section. (2.) If the deceased employee leaves -

    1. more than one person who is a widow for the purposes of this Act, with or without any dependent children, but no other dependants; or
    2. a widow or dependent widower and one or more dependent children, but no other dependants, a weekly payment of an amount equal to the employee’s average weekly earnings before the injury is, subject to sub-sections (7.) and (8.) of this section, payable -
    3. in a case to which paragraph (a) of this sub-section applies - to the widows, or, if there are any dependent children and the Commissioner so determines, to the widows and dependent children, in such shares as the Commissioner determines; or
    4. in a case to which paragraph (b) of this sub-section applies - to the widow or widower, or, if the Commissioner so determines, to the widow or widower and dependent children in such shares as the Commissioner determines. (3.) If the deceased employee leaves a widow or dependent widower but no other dependants, a weekly payment of an amount equal to seventyfive per centum of the payment prescribed by the last preceding sub-section is, subject to subsections (7.) and (8.) of this section, payable to the widow or widower. (4.) If the deceased employee leaves one or more dependent children, but no other dependants, a weekly payment or payments of such amount or amounts, not exceeding in the total the maximum weekly payment prescribed by subsection (2.) of this section, as is reasonably necessary to ensure the proper maintenance and education of the child or children is payable to the Commissioner for the benefit of the child or children. (5.) If the deceased employee leaves one or more dependants including any dependant in relation to whom sub-section (2.), (3.) or (4.) of this section does not apply, a weekly payment of such amount as is fair and reasonable, having regard to the extent of dependency of the dependent concerned, is. subject to the next succeeding subsection, payable to each dependant. (6.) The amount payable under the last preceding sub-section shall not exceed in the aggregate -
    5. if there is more than one dependant - the maximum weekly payment prescribed by sub-section (2.) of this section; or
    6. if there is only one dependant - the maximum weekly payment prescribed by subsection (3.) of this section. (7.) Weekly payments under any of the preceding sub-sections of this section are not payable to a widow or other female dependant, or dependent widower (as the case may be) of a deceased employee after her or his marriage after the death of the employee, but, if immediately before the injury or death of the employee, the widow or other dependent female or dependent widower (as the case may be) was wholly, substantially or partly dependent upon the employee’s earnings, a lump sum equal to the total of one hundred and four weekly payments, at the rate payable to her or him immediately before her or his marriage, is payable to her or him upon her or his marriage. (8.) If-
    7. the deceased employee leaves one or more dependent children and, thereafter -
    1. the widow or dependent widower of the deceased employee or another person caring for the child or children marries or dies; or

    2. the Commissioner considers that circumstances have arisen that affect the proper maintenance and education of the child or children;

    3. any variation of the circumstances of any of the dependants of a deceased employee has occurred; or
    4. there is, in the opinion of the Commissioner any other sufficient cause, the Commissioner may vary any apportionment or, subject to the maximum weekly payments prescribed by sub-sections (2.) or (4.), or subsections (5.) and (6.), of this section, as the case requires, vary the amount of, or cancel, weekly payments that are the subject of a determination under any preceding provision of this section, but where the widow, dependent widower or another person caring for the child or children marries or dies, the weekly payments payable to each child shall not be less than one-sixth of the compensation that would have been paid to the deceased employee had he survived and been totally incapacitated. (9.) Notwithstanding anything in this Act -
    5. the Commissioner may, in respect of a child of a deceased employee who is nol self-supporting, authorize the continuation of weekly payments until the education of the child is completed;
    6. where two or more employees die as the result of injury at or about the same time, and al the time of injury they were contributing towards the support of the same dependant or dependants, nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the Commissioner from determining that those dependants were dependent upon the earnings of each or all of the deceased employees; and (c) the amount of any child endowment paid under Part VI. of the Social Services Act 1947-1972 shall be disregarded in determining the extent of any person’s dependency.’. “9b. Sections 45 and 46 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead:
  2. Where an employee is totally incapacitated for work by an injury, a weekly payment of a sum equal to the employee’s average weekly earnings before the injury is payable to the employee for the duration of the period for which he is so incapacitated.

  3. Where an employee is partially incapacitated for work by an injury, a weekly payment of the sum (if any) by which the weekly amount that he is earning in some suitable employment or business after the injury is less than his average weekly earnings before the injury, or, if he is not engaged in paid employment, a weekly payment equal lo his average weekly earnings before the injury, is payable to the employee for the duration of the period for which he is partially incapacitated. 46a. - (1.) In assessing the amount of the weekly payments to be made under either of the last two preceding sections, the Commissioner shall, subject to the next two succeeding subsections, have regard to any payment, allowance or benefit that the employee receives from his employer during the period of his incapacity, and the amount of the weekly payment otherwise payable under whichever of those sections is applicable shall be reduced to such amount (if any) as is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (2.) The weekly compensation payable under either of the last two preceding sections shall not be reduced as a consequence of any earnings received by the employee during or after vocational training. (3.) Child endowment under Part VI. of the Social Services Act 1947-1972, a pension or allowance in respect of a child dependant upon the earnings of the employee, a payment other than that part of a pension not attributable to contributions for the pension paid by the employee under the Superannuation Act 1922-1971, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 or the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-1968, deferred pay, a payment under section 74 of the Public Service Act 1922-1972 or under section 8 of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act 1943-1968, and payments for public holidays, annual leave or long service leave under any other law, award, determination or agreement, are not payments, allowances or benefits to which regard shall be had under sub-section (1.) of this section. (4.) Where an employee is, subject to subsection (I.) of this section, entitled to weekly payments in accordance with either of the last two preceding sections and by reason of his retirement on the ground of invalidity caused by injury or disease, is also entitled to a pension under the Superannuation Act 1922-1971, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948- 197 L or the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-1968, the liability for the weekly payments shall, if the employee so elects, but subject to the regulations, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum of such amount as is determined by the Commissioner, having regard to the nature of the injury and the age and occupation of the employee at the date of the injury, and that lump sum shall be paid to the Commissioner for the benefit of the employee. 46b. Subject to sections 47 and 50 of this Act, where a determination is made that the liability of the Commonwealth to make further payments to the employee under section 46 of this Act in respect of an injury is to be redeemed, compensation is not payable to the employee under section 45 or section 46 of this Act in respect of a period of incapacity for work resulting from that injury, being a period occurring after the date of the making of the determination’. “9c. Section 47 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (b) all the words after the words ‘as the case may be’.”. (3.) - Clause 10, omit the clause, insert the following clauses: - “10. Section 50 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (I.) the words ‘section 39 or’. “10a. Section 51 of the Principal Act is amended -

    1. by omitting sub-sections (1.) and (2.); and
    2. by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words sub-section (9.) of section 45, sub-section (5.) of section 46’ and inserting in their stead the word and figures ‘section 46b’.”. (4.) In clause 11, omit ‘and’. (5.) Clause 11, at the end of the clause, add the following word and paragraph: - “; and (c) by omitting from sub-section (9.) the words ‘under sub-section (5.) or (7.) of and inserting in their stead the words ‘in respect of a child under’.”. (6.) - After clause 11. insert the following clause: - “11a. Section 100 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (4.) the words ‘under sub-section (5.) or (7.) of and inserting in their stead the words ‘in respect of a child under’.”. (7.) In clause 13, sub-clause (1.) omit ‘sections 8, 9, 10 and’, insert ‘section’. (8.) In clause 13, sub-clause (2.), omit ‘sections 8, 9, 10 and”, insert ‘section’. (9.) In clause 13, omit sub-clause (3.).
Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– The Government is unable to accept the amendments. I think the Opposition has perhaps been a little ungenerous in this matter. This is a Bill which follows the request made by Mr Souter particularly of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and by members of the Commonwealth Public Service organisations. It is the most generous legislation which exists for the Commonwealth Public Service or any State Public Service and as such one would have . thought that the Opposition would have welcomed it in rather more glowing terms than it has. I would not say for one moment that this is legislation which will always stand and I find myself in some sympathy with the view expressed by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) - that later on in the next Parliament the Government will be thinking, I am sure, of further amending not only this legislation but bringing in much more comprehensive legislation. This is something which the Government will have in mind. It will not reject or be unreasonable about these things but I think that the advances made by this Bill are very considerable.

There is just one thing that 1 would draw to the attention of the House, that is, that when the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) praised the provisions that are made in communist countries for example, he forgot - and perhaps the House might be reminded - that in Australia we have-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to a point of order. I do not think the honourable gentleman is allowed to refer to a debate that took place in the House. We are now in the Committee stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– No. You have it wrong. In Committee you can refer to a debate in the House. Let me correct the honourable member on that. His memory is failing him a little. If I may say so with all due respect to the honourable member, he forgets that in this country we have more generous provisions in regard to widow pensions for all widows who satisfy the means test and invalid pensions for all invalids who satisfy the means test than are available in most other countries and if there are to be injuries - and injuries do occur - there is to that extent universal compensation in Australia to an extent and of a character which I think does not exist in any other country. Perhaps honourable members on the other side of the House have forgotten this.

Having said that, let me say that I think there may be a case to be made out in the future for integrating into, by world standards, our very generous system of invalid pensions and widow pensions some kind of further automatic compensation for injury. As one who hopes in the next term of office to have some opportunity of rethinking the whole of the rehabilitation system, invalid pensions and compensation for injury, I feel that the matters brought forward should not be rejected out of hand.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I did not intend to speak on this occasion as I have continually been spoken to by the Deputy Government Whip, the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). But the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) stood in this place tonight and he inferred, by using the name of an officer of the Australian Council for Trade Unions, that that organisation is quite happy with this measure. You stood in this place last year in the dying stages of a session, did you not Mr Minister, and said the very same things you are saying now - that it is the intention of the Government to do certain things? You have had 12 months to do those things. You did nothing. I suggest to you as a Minister that you should have a look at some of the State Acts and see what a lousy presentation you are attempting to put through this chamber tonight in comparison with those. You have paid no regard to what the ACTU has said. You have paid no regard to what the Public Service organisations have said. To stand in this place and infer, in the manner in which you did, that they are quite happy with this Bill is not putting the facts of the matter squarely. You as Minister on 2 occasions have had a Bill before this House which has purported to do something about compensation. You have not even updated the provisions in this Bill to the standards that apply in many industries in this country or semigovernment bodies in South Australia which make up the difference between the workers’ compensation payment and the pay rate enjoyed by employees of these bodies who through no fault of their own can no longer attend regularly at their place of work. What the Minister has done is to limit the payment of full sick pay to 26 weeks and then he has gone and filched their sick pay - that is the term I would use in a proper industrial concept.

The Minister says that if a bloke is still off after 26 weeks as a result of having a wrist or back injury or because he has dropped something on his foot or whathaveyou, the Government will give him full pay for 26 weeks. But if his doctor - the almighty doctor, the false god to whom the Minister and his colleagues pray - says that he is going to be off for a greater period than 26 weeks the Government reduces his pay, does it not, but says in what it might think is some degree of benevolence: Well, you can take your sick pay’. Workers’ compensation was introduced approximately 100 years ago in the United Kingdom. There was a great clamour among employers at that time that it would be the ruination of industry. But you still think in the same way as they thought 100 years ago in regard to compensation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member for Sturt should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– I understand that the Bill is being taken as a whole. Is that right?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- That is right, yes.

Mr FOSTER:

– Right.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am asking the honourable member to direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– The Minister dealt wilh matters regarding the ACTU and whathaveyou. But with all due respect to yourself, Mr Deputy Chairman, I will abide by the ruling that you gave that the Bill be taken as a whole. I come back to the fact that the Bill as a whole places a limitation. Mr Chairman, of 26 weeks, does it not? The Minister says that a bloke can use his sick pay - that is what the Minister’s

Bill says. Does the Minister consider that a fair thing in the light of standards in industry today when full pay is being made up to employees. You can sit with your head in your hands, sir, because you ought to. The Bill falls far short of what ought to be regarded as a proper compensation Act in this year of 1972. You, Mr Minister, have not told us, have you, in your second reading speech of the way out for the Commonwealth which was referred to by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby). You spent more time in trying to deny workmen rightful compensation through the courts of this land than you are prepared to give in this lousy instrument that you have before this House tonight.

I would say to you, Mr Minister, through the Chair, the very words that you said in the dying stages of a previous session of this Parliament, that the time does not permit and so forth and so on. You, Mr Minister, went on to say that the amendments which were put up by the Opposition on the then measure before the House would receive proper consideration during the recess period. In fact you, Mr Minister, through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, had agreed that a parliamentary draftsman would be made available to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) in that particular matter. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is nodding his head because he has a better memory than does the Minister, and of course he does remember it, Mr Minister.

Mr Deputy Chairman, I want to wind up on this note before I am gagged by the honourable member for Angas, who I can see is getting rather edgy, and say to the Minister: Don’t you dare sit there - and this also applies to his Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) who has just come somehow or other into the chamber - and say that you are doing anything in this Bill for people who are injured whilst they are in your employ, because you are not doing that. You, Mr Minister, are not even updating the Commonwealth compensation provisions to the same standards used in semigovernment organisations within the Commonwealth. You have the effrontery to stand here and say that the ACTU and proper employee organisations in this country regard this measure as being acceptable. You know that is not true. That is the reason I dragged myself reluctantly to my feet. I wanted to let the Minister know in no uncertain terms and to push back to him the very words he has used in the last 3 years in this Parliament. You know as well as I do that the slogan ‘Not yet’ which has been coined by your Government applies to every damned thing that you have been dodging in this country since the present Prime Minister gained office and particularly during the terms of office of his predecessors. I will wind up on that note.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Clyde Cameron’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 44

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3079

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October (vide page 2770), on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3079

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October (vide page 2770), on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3080

COMPANIES (FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS) BILL 1972

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– 1 ask leave of the House to present a Bill to control foreign take-overs of certain Australian companies.

Mr Crean:

– Before leave is granted 1 would like an assurance that it is intended to proceed with this Bill during this Parliament.

Mr McMAHON:

– I hope to be able to get the Bill through even tomorrow.

Mr Crean:

– I would simply ask for an assurance that this Bill will be proceeded with in the life of this Parliament.

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes. it will be, whenever you want it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– 1 present the Companies (Foreign Take-Overs) Bill 1972.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
‘Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I move:

This Bill makes provision for the control of foreign takeovers of companies. The House will recall that in the statement I made on 26th September last concerning overseas investment in Australia I announced the Government’s intention to legislate for the control of those foreign takeovers it considers would be against the national interest. In outlining the measures that would operate under the legislation I indicated that decisions on whether particular takeovers would be against the national interest would be taken by the Government. I added that in making its decisions the Government would be assisted by an independent authority established under the legislation. This authority would analyse and report to the Government on takeover proposals which the Government judged warranted further investigation as to whether they would he against the national interest. I indicated that the proposed measures for the control of foreign take-overs would apply from 27th September 1972 and that they would embrace takeover proposals then current.

Pending the establishment of the proposed independent authority I said that there would be an interim arrangement under which departmental machinery would be used for consideration of particular takeovers on the basis of the announced criteria. This departmental machinery has been established and is functioning. A special group of officers has been appointed specificially for the purpose of examining the national interest aspects of particular takeover proposals. This group is located in my Department but it comprises officers from several other departments and is under the direction of a very senior officer who has been seconded from the Department of Trade and Industry. The reports of the group are considered by very senior representatives of several departments before being referred to the Government for decision.

The administrative arrangements for the examination of particular foreign takeovers are an important step in the implementation of the Government’s policy which I announced on 26th September. That policy recognises that we are not as dependent on others as formerly and that Australians have rights at stake in foreign takeovers in the ownership and control of Australian industry. But we also recognise that the interests of the Australian investors should not be prejudiced, except when the overriding interest of the nation requires it. The administrative machinery alone is not sufficient. If it is to be fully effective that machinery must have the backing of the law. A decision that a particular foreign takeover should not proceed must be one that, if necessary, is enforceable in a court. On the other hand, the parties to foreign takeover proposals are entitled to know with certainty where they stand. The law should make their position clear too.

The Bill will give immediate legal backing to the proposals I announced on 26th September insofar as those proposals relate to foreign takeovers of companies. The Bill will ensure the effectiveness of the Government’s control of the takeovers. It will also provide clear and precise procedures for the business world. Parties involved in or contemplating takeover proposals will know just what steps they should take to remove uncertainties. The Bill does not at this stage establish the proposed independent authority. That will be provided for in a further Bill, which will be introduced next year and will necessarily take some time. In the meantime it is desirable, that the effectiveness of the control being exercised under the departmental machinery should be ensured. The present Bill will do this.

The powers under the Bill to prevent foreign takeovers that are against the national interest will be exercisable by the Government, acting through the Minister administering the Act. This is in accord with the proposals announced on 26th September. In exercising these powers, however, the Government will in practice act on advice from the departmental officials I have mentioned. The present Bill applies to foreign takeovers of companies, and these comprise most of the takeovers within the proposals of 26th September 1972. Certain other types of takeovers are not covered by the Bill. These takeovers will continue to be controlled administratively under the departmental machinery. They will be provided for in the Bill to be introduced next year. I assure the House that the Government will not hesitate to use its powers to the full to ensure compliance with the controls. The Bill will apply to proposals for foreign takeovers of trading or financial corporations formed within the Commonwealth and also of bodies incorporated in a Territory of the Commonwealth other than Papua New Guinea. Holding companies of such bodies are also covered.

The Bill is not confined to companies of any particular size. But the Government does not propose, except in special circumstances, to apply the legislation to takeovers of companies unless their assets exceed Sim, Two main powers are provided in the Bill. One will enable the Minister to make an order prohibiting a particular foreign takeover proposal, whatever its form, from being implemented if the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the national interest. The other main power will enable the Minister to limit the beneficial interests that a particular foreign interest or associated group of interests may have in a specified company. This power will be available to ensure that the prohibition of one particular takeover proposal is not avoided by resort to some alternative proposal which would achieve the same ultimate effect. It will also be available if foreign control of an Australian company has been achieved since 26th September 1972 without prior notification of the proposal to the Government.

The question whether a takeover proposal will result in control of a company passing from Australian to foreign hands will be a matter for separate consideration in the circumstances of each case. The question in each case will be whether there is a passing of effective control. In general such control will be treated as passing :f, as a result of the takeover, 15 per cent or more of the voting power would be controlled by a single foreign interest or associated group of interests. A similar position will apply if in the aggregate 40 per cent or more of the voting power is controlled by foreign interests. These percentages will not be a conclusive indication of foreign control.

If the Minister is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances an acquisition would not give a significant degree of foreign control over the conduct of the company in question, the powers of the Bill will not apply. The question whether a particular takeover would be against the national interest will be a matter for decision by the Government. That is where the responsibility should rest. In discharging this responsibility the Government will apply the criteria that I outlined in my statement on 26th September 1972. In that statement I mentioned that a takeover may be treated as against the national interest if the company concerned is considered by the Government to be an economically strategic industry leader, or to be so large that the takeover would significantly affect the relative balance of Australian ownership and control of the industry concerned.

I mentioned also the criteria that are to be applied to other foreign takeovers. The first criterion is whether, against the background of existing circumstances in the industry concerned, the takeover would lead, either directly or indirectly, to net economic benefits in relation to such matters as production, prices, quality and range ot products and services and efficiency and technological change which would be sufficient to justify the increased degree of foreign control of the particular industry that would result from the takeover. If the proposed takeover is judged to be not against the national interest on this basis, the following additional criteria will also be taken into account: Whether, after the takeover, the firm concerned could be expected to follow practices consistent with Australia’s interest in matters such as exports, imports, local processing of materials produced, research and development, and industrial relations, including employee protection; and whether the takeover would have adverse effects on the Government’s defence objectives, environmental protection or regional development.

In making judgments as to whether particular foreign takeovers would be against the national interest on any of the foregoing grounds, due weight will be given to 3 other matters. One is the extent of Australian participation in ownership and management that would remain after the takeover; another is the interests of shareholders of the company subject to the takeover; the third is the attitude of its board of directors. The Government’s consideration of takeover proposals will normally be in 2 stages. The first stage will involve preliminary consideration to see whether a detailed investigation is warranted. This preliminary consideration will have to be completed within one month from the date that the proposal is notified to the Minister.

The Bill does not formally require all foreign takeovers to be notified. But its effect will be to cause all takeovers within the ambit of the Act to be notified. This will be because the Government will have the right to make orders to reverse takeovers that have proceeded without prior notification. If a conclusion is reached that further investigation of particular proposals is desirable, the Minister will have power to issue an interim order prohibiting implementation of the proposal for such period not exceeding 3 months as is necessary for the further consideration to be given to it.

If no order is made in respect of a takeover proposal within a period of one month from notification, it will be free to proceed. In addition, the Minister will be able in appropriate cases to grant clearance certificates in respect of take over proposals notified to him. A breach of any of the orders I have mentioned will be an offence punishable by a heavy penalty. In addition a Supreme Court will have power, on application by the Minister, to make further orders against a person who commits such an offence. The Court will be able in such circumstances to restrain the exercise of voting rights, direct payments to be withheld, direct the sale of shares, and make desirable ancillary orders.

In exercising these powers, however, the Court will be required to satisfy itself, as far as it reasonably can do so, that any order it proposes to make will not unfairly prejudice any person. The Court’s powers are limited where the breach in question was due to inadvertence and excusable. Orders made by the Minister under the proposed Act will have to be published in the Gazette. Parliament will also be informed of the making of the orders as soon as it is practicable to do so. Some will come into operation on the date of their publication. Others will operate as from a later date specified in the order. Ii the provisions I have outlined are to operate effectively it goes without saying that the Government will need to be able to obtain any relevant information and documents. In particular, information as to the persons who have beneficial interests in shares held by nominees will be needed. The Bill recognises this need and accordingly empowers the Minister to requisition relevant information and documents by notices in writing.

This Bill is a major step in the implementation of the Government’s decisions which I announced on 26th September. The Bill will ensure the effectiveness of our decision to prevent foreign take overs of Australian companies where they are against the national interest. It will do this in a way that has due regard to all relevant interests and, most importantly, keeps uncertainty to a minimum.

In due course a further Bill which will provide amongst other things for the establishment of the independent authority will be introduced. With this in mind the operation of the present Bill will cease on 31st December 1973 or such earlier date as may be proclaimed. In the meantime this Bill will ensure that the interim arrangements function both smoothly and effectively. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Crean:

– On the assumption that this Bill will be debated in this parliamentary session-

Mr Chipp:

– You have that assurance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
Mr Crean:

– Well, I was just obtaining reassurance which is sometimes necessary

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The question before the chair is that the Bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 3083

AIRLINES AGREEMENTS BULL 1972

Bill - by leave - presented by Sir Reginald Swartz, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir REGINALD SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. Recently 1 advised the House of decisions reached by the Government on several major matters of civil aviation policy. This Bill is designed to give effect to some of those decisions, namely the extension of the Government’s 2-airline policy and the obligations placed on the major airlines as a pie-requisite to that extension. The main provision of the Bill approves the new 2 Airlines Agreement between the Commonwealth, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, and the Australian National Airlines Commission, a copy of which is attached as the Schedule to the Bill. This agreement was executed by the airline parties on 20tb October and by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), on behalf of the Commonwealth, on 21st October. It does not become effective, of course, unless and until it is approved by the Parliament.

The present agreements on which the 2-airline competitive system is based are due to expire on 18th November, 1977. The new agreement extends those agreements, and the 3 together will be known as the 1952-1972 Airlines Agreement. The Commonwealth or the Company may determine the 1952-1972 Airlines Agreement by giving at least 5 years notice of termination after 31st December 1977, any determination by the Commonwealth requiring the consent of both Houses of the Parliament. It will be seen that paragraphs 5 to 9 of the 1972 Agreement are undertakings by the Company and the Commission regarding parallel scheduling of air services, the maintenance of rural air services, the promotion of lower air fares for tourist travel, the stimulation of air freight, and the restriction of flights in curfew periods. Paragraph 10 acknowledges that the Commonwealth may facilitate the provision of specialist freight and passenger services by operators other than the 2 major airlines within the framework of an economic 2-airline system, and paragraph 11 requires Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to furnish for presentation to the Parliament separate financial details relating to its airline activities. Paragraph 12 is a recognition by the airlines that the Commonwealth is entitled to recover the costs of civil aviation facilities. These are the matters which the Government said it would require the airlines to accept if the 2-airline system was to be extended, and it is gratifying to see that the parties have been able to reach satisfactory agreement on them. It was the original intention of the Government to include in this legislation provisions designed to protect the position of the Commonwealth in the event of the private enterprise airline having a certain degree of overseas ownership or control. It has been concluded that this aspect can best be covered by separate legislation, perhaps by means of legislation relating to industry generally rather than specifically to the airline industry.

In announcing the Government’s decision to extend the 2-airline policy, mention was made of the additional routes and opportunities to be given to the Government’s own airline, Trans-Australia Airlines. As soon as applications for licences are received and departmental operational requirements are met, authorisations will be issued for TAA to commence services on the Perth-Port Hedland-Darwin route, the Darwin-Gove route, and the CairnsWeipaThursday Island route. In order to remove any doubts that may exist regarding TAA’s powers to implement the Government’s decisions, certain changes in the Australian National Airlines Act may be desirable, but the limited time available has precluded the drawing up of the necessary amending legislation. It is the intention of this Government, therefore, to introduce in the first sittings of the new Parliament a Bill amending the Act so that there is no question about TAA having the powers enabling it to engage in activities closely related to airline operation and to give effect to the Government’s decisions. This Bill, together with the 1972 Airlines Agreement, is another milestone in the development of Australia’s outstanding airline system. We can be proud of the safety record, the growth, and the stability of our airline industry, and I am confident that these characteristics will continue beyond 1977 with the encouragement and the guidelines established by the new agreement. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3084

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1972

Bill - by leave - presented by Sir Reginald Swartz, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir REGINALD SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is presented for the purpose of amending the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1970 in certain material respects. Section 17 (7.) of the Act now provides that salaries of officers of the Australian National Airlines Commission, other than the General Manager, which are above $5,000 per annum are subject to the approval of the Minister for Civil Aviation. This salary limit was adopted in 1959 and is clearly inappropriate in present day circumstances in view of the substantial increases in wage levels which have occurred since that date. In addition, it creates problems in dealing expeditiously with industrial matters affecting the numerous staff on awards when the salaries concerned are above this level. It is more appropriate that ministerial control should be exercised only in relation to the Commission’s executives. The present salary of a Level 1 executive is $13,766 per annum, and the amount specified in the Bill approximates this salary level. In addition, provision is made so that the figure can be amended by regulation without the necessity to amend the Act every time the relevant salaries are increased. Section 31 of the Act authorises the Commission, with the approval of the Treasurer, to borrow such moneys as the Minister for Civil Aviation certifies are necessary for the Commission to meet its obligations or discharge its functions under the Act. Sub-section (5.) places a limit of $6m on the borrowings which may be outstanding at any time.

A similar provision was removed from the Australian Coastal Shipping Act in 1966, and there does not appear to be any compelling reason why the Airlines Commission should continue to be placed in the present restricted situation. If the limitation were removed Parliament would still have control over the funds available to the Commission through the normal budgetary processes and borrowings, other than from the Government, would be subject to the approval of the Treasurer and the Minister. Also, the Commission is required to present its accounts and report annually to the Parliament, which provides a further avenue of Parliamentary supervision. Removal of the borrowing limitation would also facilitate the change of the Commission’s accounting arrangements in relation to its superannuation schemes, to which the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) referred in his Budget Speech and which was mentioned in my recent statement outlining Government decisions on civil aviation. In the light of all these considerations it is proposed that section 31(5) should be repealed.

Pursuant to section 32(1) of the Act, the Minister for Civil Aviation, with the concurrence of the Treasurer and after consultation with the Airlines Commission, is required to determine a dividend target for the Commission for each financial year. The Commission is to be notified of this determination not later than one month before the commencement of the year. Obviously, the Minister and the Treasurer, in considering the matters to be taken into account in determining the dividend target as set out in section 32 (2) of the Act, should have available to them the latest possible information, and a budget submitted by the Commission in May is regarded as being the most appropriate basis on which to perform this task. In these circumstances, there is little time left before the determination has to be made; that is, by the end of May. It is intended, therefore, to remove the provision requiring the giving of one month’s notice and at the same time to repeal section 32 (b) (ii) which becomes redundant with the change of the superannuation accounting arrangements.

Section 37a of the Act sets out the requirements to be met by the Commission if it self-insures itself against certain risks. It provides for the maintenance of a prescribed account, and sets out the items to be charged against, or credited to, this account. It also requires the Commission to keep invested in Commonwealth securities an amount equal to the surplus in the account. It has been found that the items relating to the prescribed account now specified are not sufficiently precise. Also the surplus in the account, which really represents the profit on self insurance transactions, is not available to the Commission and the Commonwealth for any other purpose under any circumstances. The amendments proposed correct these defects. Section 37a (7), which relates to the period up to 1964 and is now redundant, is also to be repealed.

Section 65 provides that the Commission may require any person injured in an accident on its services to be examined by a doctor nominated by the Commission. If any person fails to undergo such an examination, no damages are recoverable from the Commission in respect of the injury unless the failure to undergo the examination was reasonable in the circumstances, or the Commission was not prejudiced in its defence. These provisions do not exist under general law and consequently plaintiffs against the Commission have a special penalty imposed on them which could act unfairly against some persons. There is no reason why the Commission should be placed in this preferred position and, accordingly, it is considered desirable that the section should be repealed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mir Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3085

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL BILL 1972

Bil] presented by Mr Nixon, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bit! he now read a second time.

This Bill is designed to amend the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 1960-1965. The principal Act gave effect to the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 as amended in 1962, and the present Bill results from further amendments adopted by the Assembly of the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, of which Australia is a Council member, during its 6th Session in October 1969.

Pollution of the sea by oil is a problem of increasing concern and whilst not interfering with the principal aims of the original legislation, the amendments now to be implemented represent a significant step towards the ultimate target of completely eliminating al) pollutioin of the sea by oil. Whereas at present, beyond a certain distance from land, significant discharge of oil can take place, the proposed amendments limit the discharge of oil to waters more than 50 miles from the nearest land, and then only at the low rate of 60 litres a mile. Within 50 miles discharge may be permitted at the same rate, but only in the very dilute mixture of 100 parts or less per million, and an obligation is written into the amendment that the discharge shall be as far from land as possible. Another change features a more comprehensive form of oil record book for the recording of details on the use of ship’s tanks.

A potential deficiency in these amendments, as far as Australia is concerned, is that oil, although at a very small rate of flow, could be discharged near the Great Barrier Reef, as parts of the Reef are more than 50 miles from the nearest land as defined in the Convention. It was on this account that 1 put through another amendment at the 7 th Assembly of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in October 1971 which will have the practical effect, for the purposes only of this Convention, of making the Great Barrier Reef a part of the coastline.

On past experience it will be another 2 years before sufficient countries have ratified this amendment to make it pan of the Convention. Further amending legislation will be introduced at the appropriate time.

In addition to the foregoing the opportunity provided by this Bill has been taken to increase the level of maximum penalties. Existing fines no longer reflect the very serious results of oil pollution and the measure of the proposed increases has been determined in consultation with the States, which have agreed to impose similar penalties under complementary State legislation. It is hoped that these increased fines will create a real deterrent to the wilful or negligent polluter.

Article VI of the Convention provides that penalties for unlawful discharges outside territorial waters shall not be less than penalties imposed for similar discharges into such territorial waters. As the various State Acts which implement the terms of the Convention will also be amended to introduce the agreed increases in penalties, it is necessary in the terms of Article VI of the Convention, that the Federal Act, which will apply to Australian ships in any waters, be in operation before, or concurrently with, the complementary State Acts.

The Convention amendments will not acquire international validity until twothirds of the number of countries which accepted the original Convention have signified their acceptance. As only 9 of the necessary 31 countries have so far accepted, operation of the relevant sections of the resulting Act will have to be effected by proclamation when sufficient acceptances have been notified. However, those sections providing for increased penalties will come into operation on the day on which the amending Act receives the royal assent. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3086

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL

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

Second Reading

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

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members are very much aware of the dangers of pollution of the sea by oil. I believe there is no necessity to enlarge on these, and likewise no need to demonstrate the necessity for preparedness to combat pollutions. We progressively take every possible action to prevent pollutions occurring, but the danger is always present. We are therefore in the process of setting up stockpiles of dispersant material and equipment around our extensive coastline. A stockpile is being set up at each capital city and at Darwin and, because of the long coastlines of Queensland and Western Australia, at Cairns and Port Hedland as well.

Each stockpile will be sufficient to deal with a fairly significant oil spill. For massive spills, the national plan provides for the rapid consolidation of several, or all, of the stockpiles to the scene of the action. In aggregate, the stockpiles will supply an action for the period necessary for the chemical industry to produce replacement stock. The stockpiles will be available to the authority, Commonwealth or State, agreed under the national plan as having primary responsibility for a particular spill. The whole plan, however, is based on co-operative action between authorities, and ignores any nice points of legal sovereignty. All of this of course, has a cost. We can regard the cost as having 2 components; firstly, the standing charges - interest, amortisation and so on - and, secondly, operating costs which cannot be recovered from the actual polluter, usually because the ship was not identified. This component should be fairly small, because in the case of really significant pollutions we will almost always identify the vessel responsible.

With one national plan and one set of stockpiles, it is logical, as we have agreed with the States, to raise one charge for covering the costs. The Commonwealth will put up the capital - about $lm - will administer the scheme and, as this Bill proposes, raise one levy on the shipping industry. In cash accounting, the revenue will go to Consolidated Revenue, but notional commercial accounts will be kept. We will know with precision the amount of the standing charges. We will not know in advance the amount of unrecovered operating costs. Experience will allow forward estimating, but as the plan continues, the notional accounts will be reviewed periodically. Obviously enough, if experience is good, there will be a notional surplus which would cause us to consider reducing the rate of levy.

The main point I want to make clear to the House is that this levy is not designed as a general revenue measure. It is intended to cover the costs of maintaining the stockpiles and of operations against oil spills where recovery from the polluter proves to be impossible. Over a period, the notional accounts will be required to balance exactly with neither surplus nor deficit. There is a widely accepted principle which is pithily expressed in the words: ‘The polluter pays’. It is a good principle, but in this case we have extended it a little to make the potential polluter pay. Preparedness for fighting pollutions will, as 1 have said, take a capital expenditure of about $!m which naturally attracts standing charges. If we wait for an actual pollution before recovering part of those charges we could - and, indeed, I hope we would - wait quite a time. In the meantime, those charges would be to the cost of the community. We do not see that as acceptable; so this Bill provides that the shipping industry, which is made up of potential polluters, will pay those standing charges.

Equally, unrecovered operating costs will be shared across the industry. It is true that those ships which in a given case did not cause pollution will be helping to pay for the vessel which did, but there is nothing novel in that as a principle. The actual rate of levy will be small. I expect it will be set initially at less than 2c per net registered ton per quarter - in other words, at less than 8 per cent of the present rate of light dues. As will be seen from the Bill, small ships and ships which in a quarter had little potential for causing pollution, will be exempt. In brief, this Bill seeks to cover the costs attaching to a national preparedness for combating pollution of the sea by oil from ships, lt is a straightforward, uncomplicated and fundamentally essential measure. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3087

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL (SHIPPING LEVY COLLECTION) BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill, which is complementary to the Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy) Bill that has just been introduced, provides for the collection of the levy imposed on certain ships carrying oil. The Bill reproduces as closely as possible the conditions under which light dues are collected under the Lighthouses Act and Regulations, thereby ensuring that periodic payments of light dues and the levy for any particular ship will be effected at the one time. The administrative advantages inherent in such an arrangement will be obvious to honourable members. Ancillary provisions, such as the powers of a collector to enforce payment of the levy, are also similar to the relevant provisions in respect of light dues. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3087

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 5) 1972

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill to amend the Customs Tariff 1966-1972 consists of 2 schedules. The. First Schedule of the Bill contains tariff changes in respect of imports of small pitch transmission chain. The changes were introduced by my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) on 28th September last and were explained at some length at the time. The Second Schedule of the Bill provides for a simpler expression of the rates of duty applying to plywood. The rates of duty on plywood prior to 1st July 1972 varied according to increases in thickness of one-sixteenth of an inch. On and after 1st July 1972, that is, after metrication, the rates varied according to increases in thickness of 1.6 millimetres, which is the conversion of one-sixteenth of an inch to metric terms. The change now proposed varies the rates of duty according to increases in thickness of one millimetre. Honourable members will appreciate this is a much simpler expression and more in accord with the spirit of metrication. The changes in existing rates of duty are minimal and operate from 1st November 1972. 1 commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 3088

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 September (vide page 1401), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2), the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 4 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 4 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is not here.

Mr Chipp:

– He is coming.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– At the outset I would like to ask him a question. There is what appears to be a disparity between the recommendations of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education and the second reading speech of the Minister on the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3). In the recommendations of the Commission on Advanced Education at page 65 in paragraph 5.38 this statement is made:

From the information supplied to us by the colleges in their submissions for 1973-75, from additional information supplied by the Victoria Institute of Colleges for colleges in Victoria, and from evidence about average cast prices for books and periodicals obtained from colleges, universities and the British and American international price indices, it was calculated that a grant of the order of $9.25m would be needed, to remedy existing library deficiencies. This figure is conservative since the Library Committee, in calculating average prices, adopted the lower rather than the higher estimates. Because the colleges would be unable to cope with a grant of this magnitude in the way of supplying supporting services, the Commission recommends: That the Commonwealth Government provide a sum of $5m to be made available to the States on the basis of need and on the advice of the Commission, for the development of library materials in colleges of advanced education (Recommendation No. 21).

The Minister in his second reading speech said:

The Commission on Advanced Education has drawn attention to the particular needs of libraries in colleges of advanced education and this Bill provides for additional assistance for these libraries. Over and above the unmatched grant for the libraries of $500,000 as has been provided in the previous triennia the Commonwealth will make available up to a further Jim, subject to a matching contribution from the States. The effect is to make available for library purposes an additional $2. 5m providing that States contribute Sim. The allocation of these funds between institutions will be determined by the Minister on the advice of the Commission.

It appears to me that this is not much more than a quarter of what appears the optimum sum, and it appears to be only half what the recommendations of the Commission on Advanced Education say in effect is what the libraries could actually spend because the Commission believes that the colleges would be unable to cope with a grant of the magnitude of $9.25m in the way of supplying supporting services. When, however, one reads the appalling figures of the change in the price of books and periodicals over a comparatively few years one wonders whether at the end of the triennium, if the same trend continues, the amount of $9.25m would be beyond reach. If 1964-65 - admittedly this is a longer period than a triennium - is taken as a base of 100, for British adult non-fiction books, by 1970-71 the index was 222. The prices had more than doubled. The prices of American hard cover books have more than doubled since 1957. The prices of American periodicals have much more than doubled in that time. The index for the price of selected periodicals in nearly 6 years, 2 triennia, from 1965 to 1971 increased from 100 to 204. I think this has been a major problem of all libraries dealing with the high class of publication which universities and colleges of advanced education have. I would like to know from the Minister why the recommendation on page 65 of the report of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education has been ignored.

Page 199 of the report of the Australian Universities Commission makes some reference to building grants. It deals with noncollegiate accommodation for the 1973-75 triennium. It seems to me that both the Universities Commission and academics are taking the easy way out when they say that college residences are expensive and that therefore we should settle for non-collegiate accommodation. Elewhere in its report dealing, for instance, with teaching students the Commission on Advanced Education suggests that teacher training should take place either in universities or in colleges of advanced education because the association of the teacher trainees with people in other disciplines helps to broaden the teacher trainees and makes them more effective as teachers in later life if they have mixed with other professions. I would say that in the same way residents in a college where any student is expected to have to consider other people, is expected to have certain standards of self discipline, and associates with other students, is a more desirable form of residence for a university education than is the kind of flat accommodation which is recommended by the Universities Commission.

I have no doubt that there is an increasing reluctance on the part of some university authorities to stand for any discipline in the face of some student demands, but I would be sorry if this means that we are to opt out of establishing residential colleges, because 1 personally believe that the establishment of residential colleges, especially if they are associated, as they are not usually in Australia, with tutorial facilities, with resident tutors who can assist students - traditional form of university education - is the line of development we should be taking. I think that our halls of residence in universities have some value, but if they also have people who can really care about the students in the sense that some members of the staff will be prepared to be tutors and to take a personal interest in them, a great deal more can be obtained from a university education. The Universities Commission states:

The Commission believes that the capital costs of non-collegiate accommodation can be kept much lower than those of collegiate accommodation, if its design and construction are on a domestic rather than an institutional scale. A number of universities has made proposals along these lines to the Commission and the cost per student place have generally been in the range of $4,000 to $3,000; and in some cases below $4,000. This is significantly lower than the cost of traditional accommodation. Moreover, it appears to the Commission that a proportion of the capital cost could readily be recovered through the tariff for the accommodation and, for that reason, the Commission is not prepared to recommend a full capital subsidy. However, it is important, both from the student’s point of view and for the success of the experiment, that the tariffs should be kept at reasonable levels and the Commission believes that it should not recommend too low a building grant per place. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to recommend total grants (shared equally between the Commonwealth and the States) for approved projects at the rate of $2,500 for the provision of at least one student place, the balance of the cost to be provided by borrowing. At a building cost of between $4,000 and $5,000 a place, it should be possible to amortise the consequential loan within a tariff of $9 to $10 per week, as well as allowing for adequate supervision and maintenance of the buildings. 1 suppose that $700 for 40 weeks of residence would be fairly standard in Australian residential colleges at universities. It works out at $17 or $18 a week for the student unless he is on a scholarship, instead of the $10 envisaged here. But it should be remembered that the student’s food is then provided and he is properly looked after.

It has been a depressing feature of student residents in flats that they do not cook for themselves properly and they do not look after themselves properly. I doubt whether the $10 a week plus the cost of food would be much less than the cost of residence in a residential college. It seems to me that the Universities Commission does not pay enough regard to the educational value of the residents in a college or hall of residence at a university. The contrasting point of view is put on page 108 of the report of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education where it refers to teacher education. Paragraph 9.31 reads as follows:

We support the general opinion that teacher education is a tertiary form of education but it is also our opinion that the teacher will have benefited from the experience of talcing his tertiary education in something other than a singlediscipline institution. By this we mean that to incorporate teacher education either into the education school of a university or the education school of a college of advanced education should result in turning out teachers with a better understanding of their profession and its role. Those who, in many cases, have gone straight from school to teacher colleges and from college back to school, without having been exposed to the impact of students or to people whose activities He in fields very different from their own, seem to us to miss useful experiences which would equip them better to work in a world of social and political realities.

This does not apply only to teaching students. It applies to students from any disciplines who have this association.

Insofar as the Universities Commission is making these recommendations about non-residential or non-collegiate types of accommodation for students it is abandoning the concept of the university, of a community of scholars. A good deal of the value of association in such institutions is in students really getting to know one another, as I think they do if accommodation is provided in halls of residence or, better still, in colleges. I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Science was somewhat late in coming into the chamber. We have accommodated him by accepting that 4 Bills should be treated in cognate debate. At the outset of my speech I asked why the recommendation on libraries in paragraph 5.38 in the report of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education did not appear to be implemented in the Minister’s speech.

The Universities Commission also has a comment to make on teachers at page 99 of its report. I am glad to say that it is open to assisting the universities to treat the students of teachers colleges as part of a university. The Commission pointed out that some of the teachers colleges have had close associations with universities and, while no concrete proposal has yet to come before the Commission, it is prepared to say that it would offer no objection to amalgamation of teachers colleges with uni versities provided that the students at the teachers colleges could qualify for admission to the university in the ordinary way, that the academic staff of the teachers colleges were acceptable as full members of the academic staff of the university and that the courses offered in education were in weight and length equivalent to those degree courses normally offered at the university in other faculties. I think this is highly desirable as the standard of teacher training anyway.

One disappointing feature of the report of the Universities Commission - I think the Government is culpable in this respect - lies in the long delay in the adoption of the report of the Committee on Teaching of Asian Languages and Cultures in Australia. It had this to say at page 98:

The teaching of Asian languages is of relatively recent origin in Australian universities and is still not common. For example, in 1970 there were only 500 EFTS enrolled in Asian languages. This is only 13 per cent of all foreign language enrolments and about 1.7 per cent of all arts enrolments. In 1970 no Asian languages were taught in universities in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Commission has noted the views expressed in the report of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Teaching of Asian Languages and Cultures in Australia (August 1970) that Australia should become a major centre for Asian studies at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The Commission believes that there is a strong argument for some university teaching in Japanese and in Indonesian/Malay in each major Australian city. However, it does not want to encourage the proliferation of small and necessarily weak Asian language departments and believes there is a strong case for inter-university collaboration in this matter.

I would like to know why the Commission assumes that if they were established quickly they would be small and weak. It must be concluding that we cannot draw teachers from Japan, Malaya or Indonesia. The Australian National University has in its oriental studies section many staff members who come from oriental countries. If we really desire an effective teaching of Asian languages this is a trend that should be encouraged. It is very important from every point of view, not excluding defence, that we should have in this country many people proficient in Asian languages. That rather tepid paragraph in the report of the Universities Commission on the teaching of Asian languages is therefore disappointing. I wish it had put a stronger stimulant into the Government.

I said in a previous debate that the Australian Universities Commission showed no passion to increase the opportunities for people who are not getting a chance. One of the distinguished professors took exception to what I had to say and went on to write his own article about the Commission. He said that the Commission, in carrying out its policy: . . seems to be not unaware in doing this it is reinforcing the position of an already privileged section of society; but it would doubtless take the line that social reconstruction is a matter for political leaders and is not part of the Australian Universities Commission’s Charter.

If the Commission conceives that it is not part of its charter, it cannot read. It is required by its charter to promote the balanced development of universities so that their resources can be used to the greatest possible advantage of Australia. If, as the professor says, the way the Commission is doing it is to reinforce the position of an already privileged section of society and it would doubtless take the line that social reconstruction is not a matter for it but for political leaders, it would not be interpreting its obligation to promote the balanced development of universities to the greatest possible advantage of Australia. Surely it is not to the greatest possible advantage of Australia to reinforce the privileges of an already privileged section. This criticism I make, however, not primarily of the Universities Commission. There is a complete lack of passion on the part of the Government to get the underprivileged child anywhere through a secondary education or to get him an opportunity at the university level and in this respect we contrast with the position in the United Kingdom. The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher suggested to me that in the United Kingdom about 30 per cent of the student body at universities came from wage earners. I understand that only about 3 per cent of the student body in Australian universities come from families with a gross income of from $50 to $60 a week, which one might say was the basic wage for a family today. Of course there would be variants to the taxable income which 1 understand is what is mainly considered in means tests applying to university scholarships. But I am not speaking about scholarship winners. I am speaking about ordinary students who qualify. But many cannot get through secondary education in Australia because our scholarship system operates to give scholarships to those who in the main would get through secondary education if they did not have a scholarship. The opportunities of getting a tertiary education in Australia could be improved at the secondary level. That, however, is not an obligation of the Universities Commission. It deals, and so do the colleges of advanced education, only with people who finally get over the hurdles and on to universities.

In the report of the Universities Commission at pages 13 and 14 there is comment on salaries and wages. One weakness in the Government’s policy is that whilst it will adjust the supplementary grants to changes in academic salaries it has been tardy in changing the supplementary grants to changes in non-academic salaries. The universities have to pay the rest of their staffs just as they have to pay the professorial staff and the universities, and they have been left to bear the brunt of increases for half a triennium in non-academic salaries. On page 12 in paragraph 1.39 and paragraph 1.40 the Commission deals with this. At paragraph 1.40 the report states:

While these grants have been of considerable assistance, the universities have been left to bear the consequences of abnormal increases in nonacademic salary and wage rates in the first half of the triennium and of other abnormal increases in costs for the whole triennium. The failure of the allowance included in the recurrent grants originally recommended by the Commission and of the supplementary grants referred to above to meet the full impact of abnormal cost increases has caused serious problems for the universities. On the recurrent side, universities have been unable to expand academic staff in accordance with the Commission’s suggestion in the Fourth Report; in addition, universities have greatly restricted expenditure on such items as equipment and library materials and have been unable to devote as much of their resources as is desirable to student services.

I believe that there should be set up an effective system of arbitration for academic and non-academic salaries and that there should not be merely ad hoc appointments. I believe also that the costs awarded against universities as employers on the nonacademic side should be as immediately adjustable in the form of supplementary grants always as are the costs of academic salaries. These are costs which universities cannot avoid.

I think it would be good if the Government were to take a note of the tenor of the report advanced by the Australian Universities Commission and the report of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education on these matters. We welcome the fact that generally speaking the Government is implementing the recommendations in the reports of the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. I am not sure whether many students realise that in the Australian tax structure they are highly privileged. They receive a bonanza from the taxpayers, compared with students at other levels. This will continue under the system of grants foreshadowed for universities and colleges of advanced education - there will be a grant of over $l,346m in the coming triennium for the 2 sets from the Commonwealth and the States. Those who receive this education are highly privileged. We welcome the legislation generally.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– I would like to refer very briefly to the position of colleges of advanced education. I believe that in this sector of our tertiary education system once again we are seeing the incompetence of the Federal Government in its refusal to accept a full national responsibility for tertiary education, and advanced education in particular, and also its refusal to do effectively that part which it does accept responsibility for. The colleges of advanced education are faced with yet another 3 years of financial stringency. They are once again faced with the threat of accumulating quotas, rising fees and in general some conditions which are going to force many colleges to train students under the most trying circumstances. This situation is leading to a decline in staff morale in institutes of technology and colleges of advanced education in Victoria. There is a deep seated feeling that the colleges are being treated by the Commonwealth and State governments as secondclass institutions which are being forced to push out more and more students at lower standards. I am not saying that that is the case. I am saying that this is a feeling among staff and there is a very disturbingly low level of morale among staff at these colleges.

There is a feeling, as I say, that the Commonwealth Government has betrayed its responsibility to them. There is a very serious sense of alarm among many students who feel that they are being given secondrate conditions and who are being asked to work in over-large classes with inadequate equipment and in particular under the most trying physical circumstances where in many cases the institution is still split into 2 sections. So we have this situation in the colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology in Victoria. Why do we have it? We have it basically because this Government refuses to accept a full national responsibility.

Here is a situation where the Commonwealth Government has the advisory bodies and the intelligence of the most skilled kind which can give it all the first rate recommendations it requires on how to run tertiary education in this nation. In other words, there is a clear argument here that the Commonwealth Government not only has the financial resources at its disposal but also the advisory resources at its disposal to do a first class job on tertiary education, but instead we are finding that the Commonwealth Government is forcing State governments with their stringent treasuries to bear an undue proportion of the costs of running tertiary education. Quite often this results in funds being diverted by State governments from areas of great priority into tertiary education where at least the finances they make available will be matched by the Commonwealth Government. It is time that this system stopped. It is time that the Commonwealth Government accepted at least as a start a SO per cent financial responsibility in tertiary education. It is most desirable that the Commonwealth Government should accept full responsibility for tertiary education.

We have just seen the end of one triennium of Commonwealth and State government incompetence in the administration of tertiary education, in particular in colleges of advanced education in Victoria. I am not saying that some of the physical facilities and some of the staff facilities have not improved. There has been improvement and that deserves to be praised. But the point is that the job has been run in a rather ad hoc sort of method and college councils and college staff have felt over the last 3 years that almost every day brings a new crisis. It has never been possible for any one of these councils in Victoria to look forward securely in the knowledge that the finance that they need to run their institutions is there in the sums that they desire.

Just looking at the 3-year period, 1970-72, the Victorian Institute of Colleges, which is responsible for Victorian institutes and colleges, sought something like $132m from the Commonwealth and State governments for 3 years administration of advanced education. It got only S50m from the Commonwealth and State Governments. The situation is equally disturbing in the present triennium. It depends, of course, on which figures one looks at. If one looks at the figures that sum up the individual college requirements one sees that there has been a cut of something like 52 per cent in the funds that the colleges in Victoria sought. They sought originally from the Victorian Institute of Colleges something like $306m in capital and recurrent expenditure. The colleges got only approximately SI 46m. So there has been a savage cut. These were reasonable estimates submitted in the first place by the colleges. The estimates have always been made within a framework of responsible judgments as to how the institutions could effectively meet the needs of their students.

If we look now at the next stage where the college estimates were in turn cut by the Victorian Institute of Colleges, we see here again a very savage cut. The Victorian Institute of Colleges sought $23 lm from the Commonwealth and State governments. It received something like $146m. In other words, the colleges have had 37 per cent of the funds that they require hacked off. This is a blow to these colleges. As I say, there is not a sense of clear guidance; there is not a clear sense of direction in the development of these colleges and very few can see beyond the next few months how their needs are going to be met. Let us look at the example of a few colleges. The Victorian Institute of Colleges sought $2 1.1m from the Commonwealth and State governments for building purposes and received only $8.9m. In the case of recurrent costs for staff salary costs and other costs the Institute sought $42. lm and received only $26.7m. This is a large amount of money that has been cut off these institutions.

The Victorian Institute of Colleges supported the request of the Swanbourne Institute of Technology for $l2.1m for building purposes. The college received only $4. 6m. For salaries it sought $17. 7m and received only S 13.5m. In my area the Bendigo Institute of Technology sought something like S7m for building purposes; $4m was hacked off. It sought something like $6m to pay staff salaries and received only $4m. In other words, there is an institute, a young and growing institute in the centre of Victoria which caters for a large area, losing something like $6m off its requirements. I could give further examples but I will not go any further. Quite clearly when we have cuts of this magnitude in the finances required by colleges we are going to be faced with 2 problems - and the colleges are faced with these problems. Either they have to cut drastically back on the number of students they are going to take in or alternatively they will be forced to lower the standards. They will be forced to spend less per pupil on teaching salaries and other running costs. This is the dilemma that the institutes and colleges are faced with in Victoria.

Quite clearly there will be thousands of students in Victoria over the next 3 years who will be turned away from the institutes of technology under this sort of funding although they are students who are qualified to enter those institutes.

Mr Reynolds:

– And the fees will go up.

Mr KENNEDY:

– And, of course, as the honourable member interjected, we have already seen a process in Victoria whereby free tertiary technical education has been effectively undermined by the State Government. Fees last year rose from $80 a year to $100 a year. I would think that over the next 3 years under this Government’s policy fees in Victoria could rise to something like $300 or $400 per annum. This is an inexorable process aimed partly at artificially limiting the number of places in colleges and secondly aimed also by State governments at bolstering funds that they cannot compensate from Commonwealth sources. So there is a disturbing pattern which has been established this year, and certainly this pattern will accelerate.

We have the situation of the split campus which is a characteristic of all country institutes of technology in Victoria such as those in Bendigo, Geelong, Gippsland, Ballarat and Warrnambool. This quite effectively subverts the whole concept of the community of scholars. It imposes quite intolerable difficulties on students - simple physical difficulties - who are trying to study as tertiary students. We have students travelling miles from one lecture to another. For example, they travel miles from the lecture theatre to the library and miles from the library to the cafeteria. This is a totally inadequate situation. One simply cannot look back on the situation over the 3 years that have just passed and say: T am proud of this’.

I would like to refer to one point in particular. I think that nothing summarises the second rate deal that the Commonwealth Government and the Victorian Government are handing out to the institutes of technology and the colleges than the way in which they have treated the libraries in these institutions. In the report of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education in 1969 very serious concern was expressed as to the quality of library facilities in the institutes of technology. One cannot look now after 3 years and say that there has been any significant improvement because in fact the library situation is quite desperate in many of these places. This state of affairs has been well publicised. It is so serious that the librarians of the colleges of advanced education examined the position and came forward with an estimate of how much would be needed over the 1973-75 period. If I recall correctly they estimated that something like $15m would be required. That was in itself a fairly conservative estimate. However, the Australian Commission on Advanced Education in its new report looked at the situation and expressed concern - rightly so, particularly in the case of country colleges where there is no alternative library facility available. The Committee suggested to the Commonwealth Government that for 1973-75 something like S9.25m would be needed to remedy existing library deficiencies. The Committee stated:

This figure is conservative since the library committee, in calculating average prices, adopted lower rather than higher estimates of book costs and other costs involved. Because- and here is a very significant thing - the colleges would be unable to cope with grants porting services, the Commission recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide a sum of $5m to be made available to the States on a basis of need and on the advice of the Commission for the development of library materials in colleges of advanced education.

If I remember correctly the Advisory Committee cut back the original estimate of $15m by the librarians themselves to $9. 5m. The Advisory Committee said: ‘If you did purchase, accession and maintain all these books it would cost you a small fortune in extra staff. So that is inconceivable’. So the Committee dropped it down by over $5m.

Let us see what the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has done. The Minister is very proud of his achievement. I would like to quote from a letter that I received in reply to a complaint 1 made on behalf of the students and staff of the Bendigo Institute of Technology. The letter is dated 19th September 1972. lt states:

Dear Mr Kennedy, 1 refer to your telegram of 14th June concerning library facilities in colleges of advanced education.

The Government recognises the need for some special assistance for libraries in colleges of advanced education. In each of the last two triennia the Commonwealth has provided an unmatched grant of $500,000 for libraries, and on 22nd August in my speech to Parliament on the programme for universities and colleges of advanced education for the 1973-75 triennium, 1 announced that the Commonwealth would make a similar contribution in the 1.973-75 triennium. In addition, the Commonwealth will provide a further amount of up to $lm if States provide a matching sum to promote library development.

The total effect of these measures will be to make available for libraries $2. 5m in addition to the amounts included in the budgets of individual colleges.

This is totally inadequate. If the Advisory Committee itself has made the most conservative possible estimate of what is needed - I mean that these are not even minimum standards - then the estimates are totally unrealistic. The Advisory Committee says $5m and the Minister says he is prepared to make it $lm. They say they want an unmatched grant; the Minister says it has to be a matched grant. Where is the guarantee that the States will pay? Perhaps the Minister can inform me. I am not sure that the States have agreed to match this grant but even if they do match it, the sum is quite insignificant in comparison with the outstanding need. Obviously the libraries will not be brought up to tertiary standard. The advisory committee itself emphasises that the quality of library facilities - library study and library research - is an essential part of upgrading these institutes where they compete with universities as genuine tertiary institutions.

If that is the case the situation in Victoria is still most disturbing because we find that by comparison with the universities the colleges have only about 40 per cent of the number of books per pupil, about one-third the number of magazines per pupil, only about two-thirds the seating facilities and less than half the expenditure per student on library facilities. Yet the universities are increasing their book stocks at 6 times the rate that colleges of advanced education libraries are doing so. In short this is an unfair deal to colleges of advanced education. Looking at the situation of the Bendigo Institute of Technology, despite the efforts of the college council and the staff to upgrade the facilities offered, they have suffered both in the past triennium and in the present triennium a very serious cut in their funds and the money now being spent on books is quite inadequate. From a physical point of view the Institute still has 2 separate libraries, one in the city of Bendigo and the other at Flora Hill. This is a ridiculous and absurd situation.

I remember speaking here in 1969 on a similar occasion ana expressing concern that the cut in finances meant that the Bendigo Institute of Technology would not be able to go ahead with the building of its library. That library would have been built by now but under the present circumstances the Institute will not be able to move out of its present inadequate accommodation of a lecture room at Flora Hill until the second stage of the applied science building is completed next year and they will not be able to move into the library until 1974. So at present it has inadequate space. The Institute has a quite unjustifiable and disturbing shortage of books. For example, in classes of 30 or 40 students when the students are ordered to do class work they have to use one book. In many cases because of the shortage of books some books cannot even be taken out of the building. In other cases a book can be borrowed for 2 days. There is also the situation where many of the staff have to lend out their own books. This should be unnecessary. It is ridiculous to be running a multi-million dollar institution like this on the cheap.

It has been difficult for the Institute to get extra library staff. It has been waiting for an extra 2 staff since the beginning of the year and it is only now that it is to get one of them. All in all the situation at Bendigo summarises the overall situation of libraries throughout colleges of advanced education. I am sure that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) should be able to do better than provide merely Sim. If he is serious about making these institutions different but equal, surely the first facilities to be provided are libraries. I am concerned also about the position of country colleges in general. Funds for the 5 institutes of technology have been slashed by 50 per cent. They have had $28m lopped off the funds which they require for buildings and staff salaries. That is quite a savage cut and will impede their development quite significantly. I have here a newspaper report of a statement made by the President of the Council of the Bendigo Institute of Technology, Mr Hugh Mason, and the report states:

The president of the Council of Bendigo Institute of Technology, Mr H. Mason, said yesterday -

The report was published on Saturday 15th July 1972-

  1. . that the Institute was facing the same difficulties because grants were below the estimates submitted as are faced by other institutes within the Victorian Institute of Colleges.

The report goes on to quote some figures and then continues:

These grants will mean that very few additional staff can be employed to cater for the rapidly increasing student enrollment and will almost certainly mean that quotas must be applied to most courses.

The capital funds will mean that the Applied Science Building Stage 2 can be completed but only part of the library can be erected.

No union facilities or extensions to the engineering school will be possible.

The transfer of all the tertiary students to Flora Hill will be delayed in the succeeding triennia.

This will cause major problems in administration and many students will be required to work In conditions that are much below tertiary stand’ ards’, he said.

There is a responsible spokesman for the Institute expressing his concern. The funds provided for country colleges in general are quite inadequate. There has been a drop of something like 16 per cent in the per capita amount spent on country students. For example, in 1972 a country student had $1,901 spent on him and in the 1973-75 triennium this will drop to $1,607. By comparison the expenditure for each city student will rise by 20 per cent from $1,126 to $1,350 in the coming triennium. It is most essential that these estimates by the Commonwealth and State governments be reviewed urgently. It is quite unfair that this discriminatory treatment should be meted out to colleges of advanced education because for many students, especially those in country areas, these colleges are the only avenue of tertiary education, other than teachers colleges, available to them.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– in reply - I apologise to the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) for not being present when he began his remarks but the business of the House passed more quickly than I had anticipated. Both he and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) have asked questions about the recommendation of the Commission on Advanced Education for additional funds for libraries in colleges of advanced education. In looking at this recommendation the Government came to the view that the size of the recommendation would quite significantly puncture the agreed formulas for financing colleges of advanced education and universities. This was the reason for the modification that the Government adopted in its decision. I believe that the Government’s decision will result in an extra $2.5m being spent on libraries in colleges of advanced education and I hope - I have nothing at this stage to indicate to the contrary - that the States will accept the principle that they should provide some additional funds in this area. It would mean that we would be providing SI. 5m and the States an additional Sim, making a total of $2. 5m. That amount is provided on top of the funds being made available to colleges of advanced education and I for one would be disappointed if that did not enable the colleges to make some advances with their libraries.

Mr Beazley:

– In point of fact you are rejecting the recommendation of $5m.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– We did not accept that recommendation, but we picked it up in a different form which reaffirmed the matching basis of the proposal. I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that the same approach was adopted in the additional support for country colleges which will be of particular advantage to a number of colleges in country areas in establishing additional residential places. There is also a proposal for non-collegiate accommodation about which I know the honourable member for Fremantle has some reservations. I can well understand the nature of those reservations but I think both commissions have put their proposals forward in a spirit of experimentation. If they feel that there are handicaps, drawbacks or disadvantages in the development of this kind of support for students I would think that in future reports they would revert to the fullest support for the more traditional college type of accommodation. It should not be thought that support for college type accommodation was forgotten in these reports because it was not. That is continuing. The other report is additional to that.

Since the reports of the 2 commissions were tabled, the Government has made and announced decisions concerning the greater study of Asian languages, cultures and history in Australian schools. I agree with the honourable member for Fremantle that discussions with the States did take some time but these matters were resolved at the last meeting of the Education Council and the Commonwealth’s support for greater studying of these matters in Australia schools, and I would certainly hope in Australian universities, is a matter that is now moving forward. I cannot agree with his suggestion that Australia does little to help underprivileged children or students enter universities or pursue their course through secondary schools. I believe that the changed basis of the secondary scholarship proposal which will have a means test attached to it to provide by far the greater part of the total assistance to students from low income families will be a significant help. The basis of the proposal is completely different from the basis that has operated hitherto.

Mr Reynolds:

– But will a decision be made on merit?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– When talking of education there are some advantages when the higher one goes up the education ladder additional support is provided on the basis of merit, but what we are concerned with here is that students who have ability ought to be able to stay at school, to complete their education and to have a proper opportunity tor tertiary education. When merit can be used as a basis of selection to provide substantial additional support for students from low income familities, I would hope that the honourable member would agree that this is an advance. However, 1 think that the comparison the honourable member for Fremantle made with the United Kingdom is an odd one indeed. A comparison between the numbers of 16-year-olds m full time education shows that Australia performs a good deal better than the United Kingdom. A secondary student in an Australian school has a much greater opportunity to go to a university or a college than has a student in a secondary school in the United Kingdom.

Mr Beazley:

– My reference was to income groupings, not to numbers of students.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– But I am talking about total numbers and the opportunities available to a particular community must be quite closely related to the total provision which a nation makes. In Australia we make about double the provision of tertiary places that is made in the United Kingdom. The performance there is much less than ours, as statistics show. I would like to conclude my speech without answering further interjections. I am not seeking to be provocative, but the honourable member has made his speech. One would need to examine quite closely the definition of a wage earner in the terminology that the honourable member used and the definition of a wage earner that Mrs Thatcher might well have had in mind, and then to try to come to a comparable definition within Australia to conduct a valid examination or to make a valid comparison in wage earner groups. 201 PS/72- R- -Ill 2

I stress to honourable members that Australia makes double the provision of tertiary places that the United Kingdom makes, that scholarship schemes have been very greatly expanded, that now within universities a greater proportion of students than ever before is supported by Commonwealth scholarships, and that those scholarships for next year and from next year on are to be made available on much more favourable terms than ever before in all their history, again providing the greater part of the support for low income families. Under the new arrangements a very substantial part of the total Commonwealth scholarship body will be receiving a means tested living allowance. Under the old arrangement assistance was given to about 40 per cent of Commonwealth scholarship holders and under the much more relaxed means test arrangement the assistance will rise very significantly above that figure. I would think that the fact that under the old arrangement 40 per cent of the Commonwealth scholarship holders are gaining all or part of the living allowance indicates that they come from lower income families.

Mr Beazley:

– We do not really know the income groupings in universities.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– We do know the income groupings of those students with Commonwealth scholarships and quite a number of them come from lower income families. I again agree with the honourable member for Fremantle that effective arrangements are needed for the determination of academic salaries and I am sure that he will have noted one of the terms of reference of the current inquiry which is to lead to recommendations for permanent machinery. An enormous amount of negotiation and consultation between the States and the Commonwealth is involved. Every time this process is activated it is necessary for the Commonwealth to be in a position of general agreement with the States. It is necessarily a lengthy process. If a recommendation for permanent machinery is accepted a great deal of time of many people will be saved. I am glad the honourable member for Fremantle made those comments.

The honourable member for Bendigo has referred to the alleged cuts made by the Commonwealth in the funds for colleges of advanced education. It needs to be said and repeated that the recommendations for individual colleges of advanced education made by the Australian Commission of Advanced Education were accepted by the Commonwealth in full, as was the case with universities. I have visited a number of colleges of advanced education. It is only a few days since I had the privilege of visiting the Bendigo institute, not for the first time. I saw the progress that has been made on the new site. I saw the plans for the future that are expected to be achieved with the funds made available in the forthcoming triennium. I think that a first class institution is being established on that particular site.

Mr Cope:

– Did you put in a good word for David Kennedy?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Oh, an excellent one. I repeat that the Commonwealth accepted the recommendations of the Australian Commission of Advanced Education in full as they affected the individual colleges of advanced education. As a result the Commission believes that student numbers in colleges of advanced education will rise from the present figure of about 54,000 to 81,000 at the end of the triennium. This increase has been allowed for in the very substantially increased funds that are being made available.

I will remind the House of the extent of the expenditure on higher education. In the last triennium the total capital involved for colleges of advanced education was slightly over $100m. In the current triennium the capital expenditure is $168m and the recurrent expenditure has risen from $15 1m to nearly $282m. Those increases are very substantial indeed. The capital expenditure for universities in the last triennium was a fraction over $138m and for the current triennium it is $182m. The recurrent expenditure in the last triennium was $61 9m and in the current triennium it is $835m. These very substantial increases take account not only of the improvement which the 2 commissions recommend for the colleges and the universities but also of the very substantial growth of student numbers in both areas. I thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate.

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 3098

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No, 2) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 October (vide page 2646), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

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 3098

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 September (vide page 1401), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

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 3098

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 3) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October (vide page 2767), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

ThirdReading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3099

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

States Grants (Schools) Bill 1972.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill (No. 2)

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1972.

Delivered Meals Subsidy Bill 1972.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill

House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

page 3100

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Dwellings for Aged Pensioners (Question No. 5985)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. How many units have been constructed in Queensland under the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act in each of the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.

  2. (a) How many units, not yet completed, has he approved for Queensland under the requirement that his prior approval must be obtained, (b) to which suburb or town do the approvals relate,

    1. how many units are proposed in each case and
    2. when will they be completed.
  3. What expenditure has the Queensland Government been required to meet from its own sources for the construction of aged persons’ dwellings and how many units has it completed from its own sources during each of the last 3 financial years.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1969-70 nil; 1970-71 nil; 1971-72 18.
  2. (a) 191. (b) and (c) Biloela 8; Buderim 9; Bulimba 6; Bundaberg 8; Caboolture 4; Currumbin 14; Goondiwindi 6; Hawthorne 11; Ipswich 7; Mackay 5; Margate 17; Maryborough J; Morningside 4; Nundah 4; Rockhampton 4; Sandgate 8; Southport 13; St George 4; Warwick 8; West End 32; Wynnum 4; Zillmere 10. (d) The Queensland Housing Commission has advised that as a matter of policy it does not quote prospective completion dates for projects.
  3. The Queensland Government has undertaken to spend $1,800,000 from its own sources over the 5 year period ending 30 June 1974. Completions were 1969-70 nil; 1970-71 nil; 1971-72 7. The State has to date approved construction of a further 69 units.

Papua New Guinea: Minerals and Royalties (Question No. 5993) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Will he extend Table 36 (Value of Minerals Produced and State Government Collections of Royalties 1966-67 to 1970-71) in the Treasury Economic Paper No. 1 - Overseas Investment in Australia, by supplying similar information for Papua New Guinea.

Mr Peacock:
Minister for External Territories · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Minister of . the House of Assembly for Mines. The Administrator, on the advice of the Minister for Mines has provided the following information:

Data for Papua New Guinea supplementing the information shown for Australia in Table 36 (Value of Minerals produced and State Government collections of Royalties 1966-67 to 1970-71) in the Treasury Economic Paper No. 1 - Overseas Investment in Australia is as follows:

Papua New Guinea Supplement to Table 36. Value of Minerals produced and State Government collections of Royalties 1966-67 to 1970-71 in the Treasury Economic Paper No. 1 - Overseas Investment in Australia.’

When analysing this data however, it should be noted that small gold producers who receive subsidy under the Gold Mining Industry Assistance Act do not pay royalty. Small producers contribute approximately 30 per cent of the total value of gold produced. Gold production in past years has been the major contributor to the value of mineral output in Papua New Guinea.

Child Migrant Education Programme (Question No. (082) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What amount was allocated to (a) government, (b) Catholic and (c) other non-government schools in each State and Territory under the Child Migrant Education Program in 1971-72.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

The Child Migrant Education Program is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, and funds for the program are appropriated to his Department.

The Department of Education and Science is responsible for providing educational advice and assistance, for acting as the agent of the Department of Immigration and for the development of teaching methods, materials and teacher training courses. The information which the honourable member has sought is contained in the following two tables based respectively on Table VII and combined Tables IX and XI of the Report of the Minister for Immigration on the Migrant Education Program for 1971-72 tabled in this Parliament on 20th September 1972.

The figures tor independent schools relate to Catholic schools only as no non-Catholic independent school has applied for assistance under the programme.

Government schools in Commonwealth Territories are also provided with additional resources for child migrant education. However, since the provision of appropriate education for all children in Commonwealth schools in these Territories - apart from schools for Aboriginal children - is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, the costs of providing special help for migrants are not separated from total costs of these schools. The costs are met by the Department of Education and Science and are not a charge on the Child Migrant Education Programme.

Armed Forces: Resignations of Officers (Question No. 6061)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence,upon notice:

How many officers (a) sought and (b) received permission to resign from each of the Services in 1971-72 (Hansard, 25th September 1970, page 1755 and 30th September 1971, page 1833).

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

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

Northern Territory: Tertiary and Technical Education Facilities (Question No. 6112)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What are the existing and proposed facilities for tertiary and technical education in the Northern Territory.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

There are at present 2 educational institutions in the Northern Territory providing facilities for tertiary and technical education. They are the Darwin and Alice Springs Adult Education Centres, for which the Commonwealth Government assumed administrative responsibility from the South Australian Department of Education from the beginning of 1972. Facilities for tertiary and technical education in the Territory will be greatly expanded with the establishment of the Darwin Community College.

The Darwin Adult Education Centre conducts 5 main types of post-secondary courses. courses, mainly at the tertiary level, conducted on a tutorial basis for other institutions such as the University of Queensland, the Western Australian Institute of Technology, the South Australian Teachers Colleges, the Australian Society of Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. part-time technical college type courses such as for the certificates of the South Australian Education Department in Supervision and Dressmaking and courses leading to licensing in the plumbing and electrical trades. general education courses including public examination and matriculation courses and courses for promotion in the Commonwealth Public Service. trade courses for apprentices in carpentry and joinery, electrical fitting/mechanics, motor mechanics, plumbing, fitting and turning, trade supervision and ladies hairdressing. general adult education courses including recreational, language and migrant English, typewriting, dressmaking and art courses. trade skill courses for Aboriginals at pretrade levels including motor servicing and repairs, bricklaying, plumbing and building.

During 1972 there have been more than 5,500 subject enrolments at the Darwin Adult Education Centre. The percentage distribution of these enrolments by type of course is:

The Darwin Adult Education Centre offers its courses to residents in Darwin and people at all major centres along the. Stuart Highway as far as Tennant Creek, as well as at Alyangula. It also conducts courses at the East Arm Leprosarium, Darwin Hospital and the Fannie Bay Gaol in Darwin.

For a number of years the Commonwealth Government has recognised the inadequacy of the Centre’s scope and facilities to handle the rapidly expanding post-secondary educational needs of the communities of Darwin and the surrounding areas. In 1968 it initiated an investigation by Mr M. H. Bone, then Director of Technical Education in South Australia, which led to a recommendation that a Community College be established in Darwin. Late in 1969 a Planning Committee was appointed to advise the Government on the development of this College and the recommendations of the Planning Committee were accepted subsequently by the Government as a basis for the establishment of the Darwin Community College.

The Darwin Community College will be governed by a Council which will be directly responsible to the Minister for Education and Science for the College’s development and management. The Council’s membership will ensure that the Darwin community has an adequate voice in the formulation of College policy. Since 1971 an Interim Council has been continuing the work of planning the College’s courses and its organisational and administrative structure. It is expected that a Council will be appointed by the beginning of 1974 when the College’s buildings are scheduled for completion.

The first Principal of the Darwin Community College took up his appointment in September 1972. He assumes overall responsibility for the administration of the Darwin Adult Education Centre whose present activities will continue and be expanded as it becomes part of the College. It is hoped that some College courses which do not require special equipment or laboratories will be offered at the Centre in 1973.

The Darwin Community College’s initial programme of courses will be pre-vocational, apprentice and post-trade training in all major trades business education courses including accountancy, management and administration secretarial and commercial courses certificate courses for technicians e.g. drafting, surveying, applied science lectures and tutorials for external students of the University of Queensland and other institutions a wide range of adult education courses in-service training courses for’ government and industry intensive short courses to meet special needs

Awards for trade and technician courses will be similar to those in other parts of Australia. They will qualify the holder to become a member of the relevant professional or technical association. At the tertiary level College teaching will be towards the degrees or diplomas of institutions located in the States.

The Government has allocated $4. 5m to provide facilities to meet the needs of such courses. When it opens in 1974 the College will have workshops and laboratories for trade and technician training, general and special purpose classrooms (e.g. cooking, typing and shorthand, drafting), an administrative centre, cafeteria, auditorium, . library and residential accommodation. There is provision for extension to all facilities as enrolments grow.

The Alice Springs Adult Education Centre serves the population of the Northern Territory within a 15 mile radius of Alice Springs and a 20 mile radius of Tennant Creek. It offers approximately 40 recreational, language and skill courses and some general education to leaving level. Tutorials are arranged for a small number of external students on correspondence at matriculation level. The Centre has taken over the old Alice Springs High School buildings and at Tennant Creek uses the facilities of the Area School.

Rural Lending Facilities (Question No. 6146)

Mr Grassby:

asked the - Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether credit is extended to farmers in Canada for periods up to 30 years, in New Zealand and South Africa up to 35 years, in the United States of America up to 40 years and in the United Kingdom up to 60 years.
  2. What is the longest term of credit extended to Australian farmers by any Government agency other than the Rural Assistance Board.
  3. Are the present rural lending facilities considered adequate.
  4. If not, what specific measures has he taken to improve the facilities and along what lines.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Canada- The Farm Credit Corporation makes long term mortgage loans up to a maximum period of 30 years to farmers to restructure family farms into viable units. Under the Veterans’ Lands Act Administration, loans for periods of up to 30 years are made to enable qualified veterans to purchase land, livestock and equipment.

New Zealand- The State Advances Corporation, a Government lending agency, grants loans for farm development and the amalgamation of uneconomic units for terms of up to 30 years on security, of first and subsequent mortgages. The Corporation also operates a Mortgage Guarantee Scheme under the terms of which it may guarantee mortgages that provide for the repayment of principal over a term not exceeding 30 years.

South Africa- The Land and Agricultural Bank, a statutory body, makes long term mortgage loans to individuals for periods up to 35 years for purchase of land, Livestock and equipment and for discharging other liabilities.

United States of America - Farmers can obtain real estate mortgage loans through the Federal Land Banks (which form part of the Co-operative Farm Credit System) for periods not less than 5 years up to a maximum of 40 years, though the maximum period is rarely, if ever, used.

United Kingdom - The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation makes loans to farmers for terms up to 40 years for land purchase and improvements. Until recent years, the Corporation made loans for land purchase over terms of up to 60 years.

  1. Each State has a Government-owned or controlled institution which acts as an agent in making loans for specific purposes to the rural sector. A summary of their lending at the ‘longer end’ of the spectrum is given below.

New South Wales- The Rural Bank makes loans to landholders in irrigation areas for periods up to 15 years for capital works for irrigation and soil conservation purposes. Loans to assist farmers to make permanent improvements of a productive nature are made for terms up to 13 years. Loans for the establishment of woodlots on farm properties may be made up to 30 years.

Queensland- The Agricultural Bank lends for periods up to 20 years for property purchase. The Corporation of the Land Administration Commission provides finance for allottees of blocks on the Brigalow Scheme for purchasing land and making improvements for periods up to 25 years.

South Australia - The State Bank makes long term loans tip to 30 years for property purchase and improvement through its trading bank department, and, through the Government agency, department, up to 40 years for development purposes or for the discharge of an existing mortgage.

Victoria - The Rural Finance and Settlement Commission provides finance through its Government Agency Department for periods up to 40 years for land settlement purposes under the Land

Settlement Act Loans for property purchase and/or improvements under the Rural ‘Finance Act 1958, are for terms up to 20 years.

Western Australia - The Rural and Industries Bank makes term loans for farm purchase for periods up to 30 years through its rural Department. Agricultural development loans made through the Government Agency Department may also be for periods up to 30 years.

Tasmania - The Agricultural Bank of Tasmania makes loans for periods up to 30 years for the purchase of farm properties, permanent improvements and the discharge of existing liabilities.

Other facilities- In addition to the long term finance available through the various State Government instrumentalities, farmers throughout Australia have access to medium to long term credit from the Commonwealth Development Bank where finance is not otherwise available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. Rural loans from the Development Bank are available for a wide range of purposes associated with farm development and loans are now being provided to enable farmers on small properties to buy more land and, where appropriate, to facilitate the amalgamation of uneconomic parcels of land with contiguous or nearby, holdings. Accommodation is provided by way of term loans, which range up to 20 years in appropriate circumstances; the bulk of these loans are provided for periods of 5 to 15 years.

Farmers can also borrow from the Farm Development Loan Fund which was established by arrangement between the Commonwealth Government, the Reserve Bank and the trading banks. Loans from the FDLF are made for fixed terms ranging up to 15 years, with longer periods possible in special cases. These loans are mainly directed to developmental purposes which will raise productivity.

In addition to the credit facilities outlined above, loans have been made to ex-servicemen under the provisions of the War Service Land Settlement Scheme for varying terms up to a period of 40 years.

  1. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has recently concluded an intensive study, of all aspects of rural credit in Australia this report has now been published. The Government, after consideration of the material in this report, has come to the view that there are deficiencies in the long term credit facilities available to farmers.
  2. In the 1972-73 Budget a sum of $20m has been provided for the purpose of facilitating the increased availability to farmers of long-term loans. The Government is urgently examining how this might be best undertaken, taking into accout the needs of the rural community and the facilities provided by the existing financial institutions.

Natural Gas (Question No. 6158)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. How many contracts or agreements for the export of natural gas have been approved or are under investigation by the Government
  2. What are the names of the companies involved.
  3. What is the shareholding of these companies and are they Australian or foreign owned.
  4. Are the contracts or agreements with the governments or private firms of overseas countries.
  5. What countries are involved.
  6. What is (a) the quantity of natural gas and (b) the price associated with each contract or agreement.
  7. What is the duration of each contract or agreement.
Sir Reginald Swartz:
LP

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

  1. One agreement for the export of natural gas is under consideration by the Government. This agreement relates to the possible export of natural gas from the Palm Valley field in the Northern Territory. No agreement for the export of natural gas has been approved.
  2. The application for approval for the export of natural gas from Palm Valley has been submitted by Pacific Lighting Gas Development Co., of California, and Magellan Petroleum Australia Ltd, Magellan Petroleum (N.T.) Pty Ltd and Farmout Drillers NL have completed an agreement for the sale of gas to Pacific Lighting Gas Development Co. subject to Government approval for export
  3. Pacific Lighting Gas Development Co. is a United States’ corporation. Shareholdings in the remaining companies are as follows:

Magellan Petroleum Australia Ltd: As at 4th July 1972 the published share holding was as follows: 54.1 per cent Magellan Petroleum Corporation - USA 21.1 per cent Pantepec International

Inc.- USA 24.8 per cent Australian Shareholders. Magellan Petroleum (N.T.) Pty Ltd: 30 per cent United Canso Oil and Gas

Ltd - Canada 16.333 per cent Magellan Petroleum Corporation - USA 53.666 per cent Magellan Petroleum Australia Ltd- USA/ Australia Farmout Drillers N.L.: Farmout Drillers N.L. is a subsidiary of Flinders Petroleum N.L. Longreach Oil N.L. has a considerable holding in Flinders Petroleum N.L. There is no known appreciable overseas ownership in either Flinders Petroleum NX. or Longreach Oil N.L. Equity holdings in the Palm Valley farmout are held as follows: 81.25 per cent Magellan Petroleum (N.T.) Pty Ltd 9.375 per cent Freeport of Australia Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Freeport Sulphur Company of New York, USA) 9.375 per cent Farmout Drillers N.L.

  1. and (5) The agreement is between private firms. See above.
  2. and (7) The Company has stated that the agreement relates to production of more than 600 million cubic feet per day and is for a duration of 25 years. Other details of the conditional agreement are confidential at this stage.

VIP Flight (Question No. 6404)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. Did a Royal Australian Air Force BAC-111 aircraft land at Tullamarine Airport at approximately 5 p.m. on Sunday, 3rd September 1972.
  2. If so, (a) did the aircraft carry only 2 ladies as passengers together with their luggage, (b) what was the port of origin for the journey and (c) what was the business and identity of the 2 passengers.
Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. Yes, at 5.15 p.m.

  2. (a) Yes.

    1. Canberra
    2. Lady Hasluck and Miss Daw.

Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Association Conference (Question No. 6415)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did private pharmaceutical manufacturers participate in the First Conference of the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Association in February 1972.
  2. If so, why did the Government contribute $5,000 (question No. 5896, Hansard, 13th September 1972, page 1374).
Mr McMahon:
LP

– I am informed the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Conference was of international standing with eminent overseas speakers delivering papers. It is Government policy to support such conferences where there is benefit to be derived by Australia. The scientific theme of the Conference was ‘Drug Delivery’, a matter of uttermost concern to the Government and community generally. In addition, there were discussions relating to pharmaceutical legislation affecting the control of pharmaceutical practice, and the manufacturing, quality and safety of drugs; and modern dispensing techniques both in hospitals and in private pharmaceutical practice. The Conference therefore provided benefit to the profession of pharmacy and, through it, to the community al large.

Australian Fisheries Council: Fourth Meeting (Question No. 6419) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended the fourth meeting of the Fisheries Council in Sydney on 11th September 1972.
  2. What requests and suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
  3. What follow-up action has been taken on requests and suggestions made at earlier meetings Of the Council (Hansard, 31st May 1972, page 3391).
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The names and portfolios of Ministers who attended the fourth meeting of the Australian Council in Sydney on 11th September 1972 were:

Commonwealth - Hon. Ian M. Sinclair, M.P., Minister for

Primary Industry,

Hon. Ralph J. Hunt, M.P., Minister for the Interior. State-

Hon. I. R. Griffith, M.L.A., Chief Secretary. Victoria -

Hon. W. A. Borthwick, M.L.A., Minister for Conservation, Queensland - Hon. V. B. Sullivan, M.L.A., Minister for Primary Industries. South Australia - Hon. T. M. Casey, M.L.C., Minister for Agriculture. Western Australia - Hon. A. W. Bickerton, M.L.A., Minister for Fisheries and Fauna. Tasmania - Hon. L. E. A. Costello, M.L.A., Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

  1. The following matters requiring legislative or administrative action were considered by the Council at its meeting:

Commonwealth fishing licences in limited effort fisheries - Commonwealth action.

Commonwealth licence fees and reimbursementCommonwealth and State action.

Liaison with other councils - Commonwealth and State action.

Proposed ban on school shark - Commonwealth action.

Dumping of materials at sea - Commonwealth action.

  1. Plastic sheeting from merchant ships
  2. Tyres
  3. Chemicals

  4. Calcinated waste at Burnie

    1. Ammunition and munitions.

Proposed ban on importation of aquarium fish- Commonwealth action.

Environmental Pollution Committee - Commonwealth, State and Territory action.

  1. The following action has been taken in respect of requests and suggestions made at earlier meetings of the Council:

Australian Fishing Industry Council - Continuing contact is being maintained between Australian Fisheries Council and S’tate branches of the Australian Fishing Industry Council.

Economic Research - The Department of Primary Industry has completed a number of economic research projects and has planned further projects in consultation with the States.

Oceanographic Development Committee - An interdepartmental committee was convened in July 1972 to examine the need for oceanographic research vessels.

Commonwealth Fishing Licences in Limited Effort Fisheries - Discussions between State and Commonwealth fisheries authorities have continued with the objective of coordinating policies on this aspect of fisheries management.

Commonwealth Fisheries Legislation- The administration of Commonwealth fisheries legislation continues to be facilitated by the State authorities acting under delegated powers and Standing Committee remains the principal forum through which administrative policies are developed. Bills amending the Commonwealth fisheries legislation are before Parliament.

Commonwealth Licence Fees and Reimbursement - An examination of administrative costs incurred by the States on the behalf of the Commonwealth and of existing reimbursements to the States, is currently being made.

Fisheries Patrolling- The whole question of surveillance by the Commonwealth has been under examination and the role of the States and the Commonwealth in the overall surveillance programme is at present being negotiated between the Commonwealth and the States.

Education Committee - No further meetings of this Committee have been held.

Fishing Industry Research Committee - In accordance with the Fishing Industry Research Act a new representative of the Australian Fisheries Council was appointed to the Committee.

Advisory Committee on Imports of Live Aquarium Fish - The Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the whole question of aquarium fish imports with a view to greatly reducing the number of live fishes entering Australia and so minimizing the risk of introducing undesirable species, diseases and parasites.

Single Port of Entry- The proposal to implement a single port of entry for live fishes is now no longer relevant because such control will be unnecessary once the number of fishes imported is greatly reduced.

Advisory Committee on Imports and Exports of Live Food and Sport Fish- The Advisory Committee is at present considering the proposal to introduce Nile perch into

Queensland, and it is anticipated that a recommendation regarding the desirability or otherwise of the introduction will be made in the near future.

Importation of Live Oysters- The importation of live oysters and spat from countries other than New Zealand has been prohibited by the appropriate Department because of the danger of introducing diseases and parasites to the established oyster industry in Australia.

Importation of Salmonids - Salmonids and their eggs cannot be imported without the specific permission of the Minister for Customs and Excise, and such permission is not now being granted because of the recognised risk of introducing diseases to the domestic trout fisheries.

Internationa] Conferences- The Commonwealth and States fisheries authorities continued liaison to develop and present Austalian policies at international fisheries meetings.

Certificate of . Competency for Fishing Vessel Skippers- Liaison is being established between Standing Committee on Fisheries, the Standing Committee of the Australian Association of Port and Marine Authorities and the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education.

Dumping of Materials at Sea- The Commonwealth has now adopted a standard procedure to be followed whenever permission is sought to dump material at sea.

Oilspill Control Contingency PlanningFurther interdepartmental discussions have been held to develop a co-ordinated national oilspill plan.

Heavy Metal Contamination of Aquatic Organisms - A preliminary report has been prepared and submitted to a SubCommittee of Standing Committee for further consideration.

Conversion to Metric System - The coordination of legislation amendments to enable conversion to Metric measurement is being undertaken through Standing Committee.

Domestic Wheat Sales (Question No. (422)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

What has been the (a) amount, (b) percentage and (c) value of wheat marketed in Australia (i) through the Australian Wheat Board and (ii) outside the Board in (A) each year and (B) all years from and including the year when wheat quotas were introduced.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Domestic sales of wheat made by the Australian Wheat Board since wheat delivery quotas were introduced in 1969-70 have been:

The volume and value of wheat traded without the authority of the Board are not known.

Long-distance Buses: Safety Standards (Question No. 6461)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did he state in a Press statement on 10th July 1970, following a meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council in Port Moresby, that minimum safety inspection standards will be drawn up for long distance buses operating throughout Australia.
  2. If so, have those standards been adopted and enforced: if not, when is it expected that they will be.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. As referred in the Press statement, the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance has prepared proposals for the inspection of long distance buses. These have been considered by the Australian Transport Advisory Council and, at the present time, the Committee is preparing for their incorporation in the Draft Regulations Defining Vehicle Construction, Equipment and Performance Standards for Road Vehicles.

Water Conservation: Eton Project (Question No. 6465)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

What is the reason for the extraordinary delay in announcing a negative or affirmative decision on the Eton water conservation project which is regarded as a relatively simple project for evaluation analysis.

Sir Reginald Swartz:
LP

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

It has been decided that the Commonwealth Government will not provide financial assistance for the Eton water conservation project. This project is not considered to have sufficient merit from the national viewpoint to justify the provision of such assistance under the National Water Resources ] Development Programme. The Premier of Queensland has been advised by the Prime Minister of the above decision.

Telephone Directories: Contract for Pink Pages Advertising (Question No. 6505)

Mr Grassby:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Following the award of the contract for the advertising rights for the Victorian Pink Pages telephone directories to an American company, Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd, did his Department give an assurance to the staff of Edward H.

O’Brien Pty Ltd, that the management of Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd had already indicated a willingness to employ people in Melbourne currently employed by Edward H. O’Brien Pty Ltd.

  1. Can he say whether 7 of O’Brien’s clerical staff have been refused employment by the American firm and that 33 of the remaining staff, because of uncertainty of the future, have taken outside employment.
  2. Can he also say whether O’Brien’s head artist has been told that he is not required after 18 years continuous service, salesmen of the company will cease employment on 27th October 1972 and other staff have not yet received any indication of their employment prospects.
  3. If the position is as stated, will he order a reconsideration of the decision to let this contract to an overseas firm.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The Department could not give any such assurance to employees of Edward H. O’Brien Pty Ltd. The position is that, under a competitive tendering system, continuity of employment cannot be taken into account when assessing tenders. Nevertheless, immediately after the allocation of the Victorian contract the Department took the initiative to bring together the incoming and outgoing contractors to facilitate smooth transitional arrangements including the transfer of employees from the latter to the former organisation. During and subsequent to these discussions, Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd stated publicly that they were interested in employing staff of Edward H. O’Brien Pty Ltd - a willingness later attested to by representatives of Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd at the recent hearings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Publications who inquired into this matter.
  2. and (3) The extent of transfers of employees between the 2 organisations depends on a number of factors including the time ..scales within which the organisations can release or accept the employees, the qualifications and suitability of the employees themselves, as well as their willingness to accept the conditions of employment offered by the incoming contractor. The Department is not aware of the number of former employees of Edward H. O’Brien Pty Ltd who have taken outside employment. It is understood, though, that Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd have already arranged to employ about 50 former O’Brien staff when they become available and that further interviews will be held. So far as the Head Artist in question is concerned, it is our understanding that Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd do not have a requirement for his particular skills, but that the Company has made alternative arrangements for him.
  3. No. In its report, the Joint Committee on Publications observed that the decision of the Post Office to award the Victorian contract to Directories (Aust.) Pty Ltd was in accordance with accepted practice.

Maternity Bonus Diamond Jubilee: Commemorative Stamps (Question No. 6510)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Will he consider the issue of a special postage stamp to mark the diamond jubilee of the introduction of the first social service of its kind in the world, the maternity bonus, by, the Fisher Labor Government in 1912.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

The achievements of the Fisher Government have already been recognised by my Government by the issue of a special stamp in March, 1972, as part of the Prime Ministers Series. Departmental publicity at that time drew attention to important legislation passed by the Fisher Government, including the Maternity Bonus.. As this stamp was intended to cover all aspects of the Fisher Government, it is not proposed to recognise individual achievements. In any case, some 18 months are needed for the design and production of a stamp and there is now insufficient time available to issue such a commemorative stamp in 1972.

Electoral: Enrolment of Servicemen (Question No. 6513)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Are members of the Armed Forces permitted to remain enrolled in the electoral division where their horns, or that of their parents, is located or are they obliged to transfer - their enrolment to their place of posting within I month of that posting.

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

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

A member of the Armed Forces who is enrolled for his usual place of living is entitled to have his name retained on the roll for that place, provided he has a fixed intention of returning to that place for the purpose’ of continuing to live thereat. A member of the Armed Forces who does not qualify for enrolment in these terms should enrol for the address of the post at which he is serving, provided such post is within Australia.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Whyalla Area Management (Question No. 6526)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. On what date was an Area Manager appointed for the area of South Australia now administered from Whyalla.
  2. When will a decision be made on the location of the headquarters of the area management to cover this area.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. A provisional promotion to the position concerned was made on 10th February 1972. Appeals were lodged against this and other provisional promotions as an Area Manager and after these were heard by the Promotions Appeals Committee this provisional promotion was confirmed on the 14th September 1972. The Area Manager referred to commenced in this new position on 2nd October 1972.
  2. The centres to become headquarters in each country area will not be finally selected until late this year or early next year. Country Area Managers are at present studying the advantages and disadvantages of alternative centres as area headquarters. They will have discussions with councils and other interested public bodies and organisations to enable full consideration to be given to the views of these groups when preparing their reports and recommendations.

Rail Standardisation: South Australia (Question No. 6527)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has the committee which he and the South Australian Minister for Transport set up to examine details of the standard rail link with Adelaide finalised its examinations; if so, when will the report be available.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The Adelaide Standard Gauge Connection Liaison Committee was established to examine the various technical problems involved in association with the Consulting Engineers Maunsell and Partners. This examination is not yet complete.

The Prime Minister: Visits to Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 3928) Mr Whitlam asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

On what dates and for what purposes has he visited the Territory of Papua and New Guinea (ilansard, 25th August 1971, page 670).

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

As the honourable member will be aware, I intended to visit the Territory between 2nd and 5th August During my visit I would have met with the Chief Minister and the Administrator’s Executive Council and with the Leader of the Opposition, and would have given an address at a Parliamentary Dinner. I would also have visited centres in Papua, New Guinea and the Islands. However, developments in relation to the oil dispute made it necessary to cancel this visit at short notice. It remains my intention, as I stated in reply to a question without notice from the honourable member on 25th August 1971, to make another visit when I can.

Although I have not kept detailed records of my movements as a Minister, a check with departmental records still available shows that, as Minister for the Navy and Minister for Air, I made 3 visits to the Territory (not one, as suggested in the honourable member’s question without notice on 7th September 1971).

Between 13th and 18th January 1952 I visited Papua and New Guinea in the course of an official visit to north-eastern area units of the RAAF and a general review of facilities. I travelled by RAAF Dakota aircraft and visited Port Moresby, Lae, Manus Island and Rabaul. Official calls were made on the Administration at Port Moresby, Lae and Rabaul.

Between 18th and 20th November 1952 I visited the Naval establishment and facilities at Manus Island during the early stages of a visit to the Far East and Japan. I inspected the Naval tank farm which was overrun by jungle and was to be rehabilitated. I also inspected Seeadler Harbour where a proposal was under consideration for the construction of a new jetty and considered issues relating to the repatriation of Japanese prisonersofwar

I flew to Manus Island again on 14th-15th March 1954. On that occasion, I visited the RAAF unit at Momote and reviewed the Naval establishment and inspected facilities after which I flew to Darwin to inspect facilities there (see answer to Question No. 5460 in Hansard of 10th October 1972).

In January 1952 I travelled to Manus and back by RAAF Dakota. In November 1952 I flew to Manus by RAAF Dakota and departed by Qantas aircraft for Guam. In March 1954 I journeyed to and from Manus by Lincoln aircraft.

I can assure the honourable member that over many years I have maintained contact with the affairs of Papua New Guinea, and with those concerned with its administration, and am fully and sympathetically aware of this important area of Commonwealth policy responsibility.

The Prime Minister: Visits to Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 4044) Mr Whitlam asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What wask (a) the date and (b) the duration of each visit he has paid to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and what centres did he visit on each occasion.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

See answer to Question No. 3928.

The Prime Minister: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4776)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many staff, advisers and others accompanied him and Mrs McMahon on their recent overseas visit
  2. How many persons were in the accompanying press group.
  3. On which airlines did these parties travel.
  4. What was the cost of air fares paid to each airline.
  5. Did his party travel with other than the Australian international flag carrier Qantas; if so, why.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Fourteen, including one officer who joined the party in the United States and then returned to Australia. Four other persons, being overseas for other purposes, were associated with the visit for different stages of the journey.
  2. Ten.
  3. and (4) The estimated cost of air fares paid to each airline (including the cost attributable to the visit of the 4 persons mentioned in (1) who did not undertake the full journey) is as follows:

As Qantas arranged the bookings it is entitled to receive a 7 per cent commission for the travel with other airlines. The Commonwealth carried no financial responsibility for the press party.

  1. I refer the honourable gentleman to my reply to a question without notice (Hansard, 24th November 1971, pages 3548-9).

School Fees (Question No. 6170)

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

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many schools in Australia charge fees in excess of $300 per annum.
  2. Which secondary schools in New South Wales charge fees in excess of $300 per annum and what are the respective fees they charge.
  3. How many pupils are enrolled at these schools.
  4. What are the fees charged by regional Catholic secondary schools in New South Wales.
  5. How many pupils are enrolled at these schools.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4) Information on fees charged by non-government schools is given in my Department’s publication ‘Fees at Non-government Schools’ which was issued in March 1972. I have arranged for a copy of this bulletin to be sent to the honourable member.

  1. and (5) The States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969 requires me to report to the Parliament each year giving details of payments under the Act. The Annual Report for 1971 which I presented to the House on 31st August 1972 contains, in addition to details of payments made in 1971, information on enrolments at all schools to which payments have been made in 1971. The honourable member will have recently received a copy of this Report.

Medical and Hospital Benefits Funds (Question No. 6188)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. With reference to part (4) of the answer to question No. 5023 (Hansard. 31st May 1972, pages 3417-8) and the statement that the remaining organisation in Victoria at present has 3 contributor representatives in - its governing body of 11, (a) are those contributor representatives elected by the vote of all contributors to the fund, (b) are all contributors to the fund advised of their right to vote and provided with a ballot paper and (c) is the number of contributor representatives on the governing body restricted to 3 out of the total of 11 by regulation; if not, how is this ratio of 3 to 1 1 established. ‘
  2. As it is pointed out in .relation to South Australia that of the 2 friendly societies one specifically makes constitutional provision for the election of contributor representatives, does this mean that the other has contributor representation on its governing body as an act of grace.
  3. In the case of Western Australia, (a) is election to the Management ‘Committee at the Annual Meeting an election in which all contributing members to the fund are entitled to participate or is it restricted only to certain contributors, (b) are all contributors advised of their right to vote at the Annual Meeting and (c) are all contributors entitled to nominate for election to the Committee.
  4. Will the Minister supply fuller details in relation to Tasmania and in respect of that State will he provide answers to the questions asked in part (3) of this question.
  5. Does the Government have any proposal for contributor representation, democratically elected by the right of vote for all contributing members to funds, to be written into the regulations controlling these funds; if not, why not.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) No. However, all medical and hospital fund contributors may attend the annual meeting to elect contributor representatives, (b) The annual meeting of medical and hospital fund contributors is advertised extensively in the daily newspapers and on printed notices available at all branches and cash payment centres. Ballot papers are provided to all contributors present at the annual meeting. I understand that the organisation proposes that when the membership books are next reprinted a note will be Included advising contributors that an annual meeting of contributors is held each year, (c) No. The Association concerned consists of 25 members including 4 contributor representatives elected by contributors present at the annual meeting. The 25 members of the Association elect an Executive (Governing Body) of 11, of which one member must be a contributor representative. Whilst the constitution provides for a minimum of one, all 4 could be on the Executive if* elected. At present there are 3 contributor representatives on the Executive.
  2. No. The procedure followed for the election of office bearers by the Friendly Society referred to by the honourable member ensures that contributor representatives can be elected. Contributors to the medical and/or hospital funds of this Society need not become members of the lodge or branch of the Society itself, but members of the Society are generally contributors to the Society’s medical and/or hospital funds. The procedure for the election of office bearers is that members of each branch or lodge elect a delegate or delegates to the annual meeting and the annual meeting elects the office bearers who form the governing body of the Society.
  3. (a) Election to the Board of Management is restricted to financial ordinary members of the fund. The organisation’s rules define an ordinary member as ‘an employee of the State or Commonwealth Government Departments or SemiGovernment Instrumentalities’. Ordinary members constitute the large majority of the fund’s membership, (b) Notice of the Annual General Meeting is published in a Perth Newspaper, (c) Ali financial ordinary members are entitled to be nominated for election to the Board. Nominees must be proposed and seconded by financial ordinary members of the fund.

  4. In referring to Tasmania in Part (4) of the reply to Question 5023, it was advised that none of the 3 largest open funds in that State provided specifically in their constitutions for the election of contributor representatives, but nevertheless one organisation observed a practice whereby 3 directors retire each year and the vacancies are filled by election at the annual general meeting. The fuller details required for this organisation are:

    1. All contributing members to the fund are entitled to participate in the election of the Management Committee.
    2. Notice is published in each of the 3 Tasmania’n newspapers on 2 consecutive days. Notice is published at least 7 days prior to the meeting. The notice advises the place and time of the meeting and details of business to be discussed including the election of the Management Committee.
    3. Yes.
  5. The Government supports the principle of contributor representation on management boards. However, it should be borne in mind that there are practical difficulties in making arrangements for hundreds of thousands of contributors resident throughout the State to appoint their own representatives. The difficulties are mainly related to the problem of contributors in general organising representation from people who could truly claim a mandate from the majority of contributors. It is difficult to see how this could be done without extensive campaigning and balloting, and this seems unnecessary for organisations whose overall activities are ultimately supervised by the Government. In this regard, the present provisions of the National Health Act are designed to ensure effective organisation management and effective protection of contributors’ rights. The honourable member will recall that the 1970 amendments to the National Health Act were specifically designed to tighten controls over the administration of health insurance funds in the interests of contributors.

Examples of the action taken by the Commonwealth to ensure adequate protection of contributors’ rights include:

Each fund must register separately in each State and maintain separate financial records and the Government will not permit funds to continue operations under the National Health Act unless they can demonstrate efficient and economical operations;

The funds must abide by directions given by the Minister on variations in contribution rates. (This provision enables the Government to implement its policy of requiring health insurance funds to utilise accumulated reserves by increasing benefits without increasing contribution rates to contributors); Section 76 of the Act provides that all registered medical and hospital benefits organisations shall submit details of their financial operations and membership each year. These statements form the basis of a Report to Parliament each year.

There are also other important safeguards applied to contributors, e.g. the Registration Committee, which is constituted under Section 70 of the National Health Act, has a statutory obligation to consider and report to the Minister on proposals submitted by organisations to change rules affecting contributors’ rights. The Committee reports on any matters which, in its opinion, might impose any unreasonable or inequitable conditions affecting the rights of contributors.

International Labour Organisation: State Attitudes to Conventions (Question No. 6219)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. When and with what result were the States still in default (Hansard, 31st May 1972, page 3379), last asked their attitudes to the ratification of International Labour Organisation Conventions No. 64 - Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939, No. 107- Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957 and No. Ill - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958.
  2. Do Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory laws and practices yet comply with the Conventions.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As my predecessor said in answer to Question No. 1005 (Hansard, 3-4 June 1970, page 2933) there is continuing correspondence, etc., with the States concerning unratified Conventions where ratification cannot proceed on the basis of Commonwealth action alone. This applies to these three Conventions and particularly to Conventions Nos 107 and 111.

As to Convention No. 64 - Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939, the position remains essentially that detailed in the ‘Review of Australian Law and Practice relating to Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference.’ In the Australian Capital Territory there is no dependent indigenous population while in the Northern Territory the position is basically the same as in those States where the Convention is applicable.

Progress in respect of Convention No. 107 - Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957 is dependent upon clarification as to precisely what action would be required in the Australian context to give effect to the provisions of the Convention concerning recognition of rights of ownership of land which indigenous populations traditionally occupy. There has been continuing consultation with the International Labour Office over recent years in an attempt to obtain authoritative advice on this matter.

As to Convention No. Ill - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958, steps have been taken in recent years, with the co-operation of the States, employers and unions concerned, to repeal or amend legislation and awards which discriminated in employment and occupation on the basis of race or colour. There appear now to be no impediments to ratification of the Convention in regard to the employment of Aborigines in Australian jurisdictions including the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The Convention also deals, of course, with discrimination of other kinds and thu) and other Issues relating to ratification are being discussed with the States and in the National Labour Advisory Council.

International Labour Organisation (Question No. 6309)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Does the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 102 - Social Security (Minimum Standards), 1952 prescribe minimum standards of benefit for 9 branches of social security, namely, medical care, sickness, unemployment, old age, employment injury, family, maternity, invalidity and survivors’ benefits.
  2. With which of these branches does Australian law and practice conform.
  3. In respect of which branches do the States not agree to ratification (Hansard. 31st May 1972, page 3379).
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In those branches where the Convention provides for periodical benefits the issue arises whether ratification may imply acceptance of the principle that rates of benefit are to be directly related to the wage of an ordinary adult male labourer. This wage is the basis of the ‘standard’ benefits prescribed in the Convention which are relevant to Australia. Aside from this, it is considered that the current Australian position is in compliance with the parts of the Convention dealing with unemployment, old-age, family and invalidity benefits. There is also close conformity between Australian law and practice and the parts of the Convention dealing with medical care, ?nd sickness and survivors’ benefits.
  3. The only branch of social security dealt with in the Convention which would require the agreement of the States before ratification is employment injury benefit. The approach adopted in Australia differs in several respects from that in the Convention and no State has agreed to ratification in respect of this benefit.

Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. 86A of 1972 (Question No. 6430)

Mr Killen:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. On what date and at what time was a request made or direction given to the Australian Government Publishing Service for the printing of the information contained in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. 86A of 1972.
  2. Who made the request and/or order.
  3. How many copies of the Gazette were printed by (a) 12.01 a.m. and (b) 1.00 a.m. on Wednesday, 13th September 1972.
  4. Was the Australian Government Publishing Service Book Centre at 113 London Circuit, Canberra, A.C.T. open for business at any time between 12.01 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. on Wednesday, 13th September 1972.
  5. If not, at what time on 13th September 1972 did the book Centre open for business.
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The request was made on 12th September 1972 at 8.15 p.m.; the copy was received at 9.35 p.m.
  2. The request was made by the Department of the Interior.
  3. (a) approximately 315 copies; (b) approximately 2,375 copies.
  4. No.
  5. 8.30 a.m.

The Environment: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 6499)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended the third meeting of the Environment Council in Brisbane on 4th October 1972.
  2. What requests and suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
  3. What follow-up action has been taken on requests and suggestions made at earlier meetings of the Ministers (Hansard, 6th October 1971, page 2003; 23rd February 1972, page 179; 26th April 1972, page 2057 and 17th August 1972, page 455).
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following Press statement was issued at the conclusion of the meeting. ‘State and Commonwealth Ministers with prime responsibility for the environment agreed today that, South Australia excluded, the existence of inadequate sewerage facilities is a major cause of pollution in Australia. They recommended that the States affected approach the Commonwealth at the next Premiers’ Conference with a view to making special financial arrangements, in addition to arrangements already in existence, for the specific purpose of removing the backlog in the construction of sewerage systems and sewage treatment plants, such financial arrangements to apply over a 10 year period.

They agreed that the arrangements should be of a nature to permit the elimination of the backlog in this period through assured annual financial provisions.

Present at today’s meeting were:

COMMONWEALTH- The Honourable Peter Howson, M.P., Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

NEW SOUTH WALES- The Honourable J. G. Beale, M.E,, M.L.A., Minister for Environment Control.

VICTORIA- The Honourable W. A. Borthwick, M.L.A., Minister for Lands and Minister for Conservation.

QUEENSLAND - The Honourable J. BjelkePetersen, M.L.A., Premier of Queensland, (Chairman).

SOUTH AUSTRALIA- Representing: The Honourable G. R. Broomhill, M.H.A., - Dr W. G. Inglis.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA - The Honourable R. Davies, M.L.A., Minister for Environmental Protection.

TASMANIA- The Honourable M. G. Everett. Q.C., M.H.A., Attorney-General.

Council noted that the brief for the Australian Delegation to the OECD Air Management Sector Group meeting in Tokyo had highlighted the increasing air pollution of Australian cities stemming from motor vehicle emissions and the indications that the standards currently proposed for new vehicles would not . be adequate. Council therefore asked that its Emissions Sub-Committee seek an early joint meeting with the Motor Vehicles Emission Committee of the Australian Transport Advisory Council to review the adequacy of existing standards for new vehicles and how these might be extended to vehicles already on the road. Council noted that progress was being made in all States on enabling legislation or regulations relating to noise pollution and asked the Standing Committee to make recommendations on uniform standards for it to consider at its next meeting.

The Council approved the creation of a Research Sub-committee. This Sub-committee would be required to establish priorities for a 5 year environmental research programme. In so doing the programme should identify and attempt to rationalise environmental research activities being undertaken in various localities and instrumentalities and not seek to duplicate work already being . undertaken locally or overseas. The Research Sub-committee will also be required to draft for Council’s consideration a research listing for 1972 similar to that published by New South Wales for 1971.

The Council resolved to co-ordinate pollution monitoring data from all available sources including data on the dietary intake of man and animals. It decided that data on environmental conditions should be made public promptly together with any necessary explanatory notes. The Ministers agreed to set up a sub-committee to look at marine pollution problems in Australia. The Standing Committee was asked to recommend on guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements which might be adopted by the States and Commonwealth.’

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

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 October 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19721024_reps_27_hor81/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant