House of Representatives
21 November 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 11.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3573

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalisation of health services which will lead to impersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s freedom of choice.

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.

Your petitionerstherefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McMahon, Mr Garland and Mr Killen.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health ‘Scheme;

That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a General Practitioner, Specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bonnett, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Corbett, Mr Jarman, Mr Katter, Mr McVeigh and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coates, Mr Cooke, MrDrury, Mr Giles, Mr McLeay and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to build into the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work - integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bourchier, Mr Davies, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Luchetti, Mr Nixon, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wentworth.

Petitions received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage.
  3. The reduction of the present per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Further, the curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  4. Parents should be encouraged to contribute to education. The proposed legislation penalises those who do contribute, and endorses the apathy of those who do not contribute.

Your petitioners therefore ask that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government -money spent on education, and so instruct the proposed National Schools Commission.

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

Petition received.

Education

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:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.
  3. The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at considerable personal sacrifice to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Indeed the curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  4. Some independent schools of high educational standards will be forced to close with the consequences that children attending those schools will have to attend government schools already over taxed and under staffed.
  5. Some independent schools have been encouraged to lower standards in order that their parents may continue to receive per capita grants.
  6. Parents should be encouraged to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed legislation will penalise parents who try to exercise this choice, and discourage them from making a vital financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jarman and Mr Mathews.

Petitions received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned employees of the Australian television industry respectfully showeth:

That should the Government allow the importation of colour television sets and component parts into Australia, the skilled and efficient workers employed in the Australian television industry may be deprived of their livelihood and Australia would lose the benefit of their developing technical expertise.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives urge the Government to take all necessary action to ensure that the television industry and those employed in that industry are not disadvantaged by allowing the importation of colour television sets and component parts into Australia.

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia shows:

That your petitioners strongly believe that it is the right of every Australian citizen to have freedom of choice of medical and hospital care. We also believe that every Australian citizen is entitled to adequate and competent medical and hospital care no matter what level of income he receives.

We believe that if the proposed National Health Scheme is based on the Deeble Report, it will immediately for some, and ultimately for all citizens take away their freedom of choice of medical and hospital care. It will also take away the autonomy and independence of private hospitals, as will be seen from paragraphs 3.31 and 3.43 of the Report.

Your petitioners therefore ask that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled instruct the Minister that the National Health Scheme should acknowledge the right of every Australian citizen to a free choice of medical and hospital care, and should guarantee the right of independence of the private hospitals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Erwin.

Petition received.

Firearms

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they oppose the proposed control of firearms by recording of ownership because it means that they must submit to a degrading process of seeking references as to their mental health and supply reasons as to why they should be allowed the favour of possession of a sporting firearm.

That decent people will be put to great inconvenience and expense merely to get their name, address and phone number recorded and that such controls will affect the personal liberties of more than 20 per cent of the voting public.

That they see crime as a social problem and not an equipment problem and that the way to reduce the armed crime rate is to give mandatory eight year jail terms for use of guns in crime and not through registration of firearms.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives urge the Government not to introduce laws which will control the ownership of firearms by registration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Erwin.

Petition received.

National Anthem

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That there are many people in Australia who still prefer ‘God Save The Queen’ as the National Anthem in preference to the alternatives that have been suggested.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government to include God Save The Queen’ in any referendum or poll held for the purpose of deciding the future of a national anthem.

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

Petition received.

Northern Territory National Park

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled:

This humble petition of interested citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

  1. That there is widespread public concern over the delay of the Commonwealth in promulgating a

Top End (Kakuda) National Park in the Northern Territory in a region which a former Minister for the Interior has described as ranking with the Great Barrier Reef and Ayers Rock as a major tourist attraction’.

  1. That in the seven years since the Northern Territory Reserves Board first notified its proposal the area, despite frequent representations and objections to the Minister, has not yet been reserved.
  2. That over the intervening years the area concerned has been subjected to pastoral leases and mining prospecting authorities and it is now proposed to build a road into the region, which will further damage this magnificent possession.
  3. That the proposed National Park is rich in Aboriginal paintings, unique fauna, unique flora and dramatic scenery; also there is an apparent meeting of plant life from the east coast with that of the west, a phenomenon found nowhere else in Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will at once, in the public interest, take steps to dedicate as a National Park an area of at least 1436 square miles as recommended by the Northern Territory Reserves Board.

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

Petition received.

Whales

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licences issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

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

Petition received.

Kapooka Military Band

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That it is our belief that the Military Band based at First Recruit Training Battalion at Kapooka, near Wagga Wagga in New South Wales has, in the past, played a vital part, not only in the military, but also in the community life of this area.

That the disbanding of this Unit would strip the First Recruiting Training Battalion of a necessary military and public relations organisation, and would reduce the employment at the many local events at which this band has in the past played.

That we furthermore believe that this disbandment would be detrimental to army music in general, as a training ground for potential musicians would be lost.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives urge the Minister for Defence to reverse his decision to disband the Military Band at Kapooka. by Mr Fairbairn.

Petition received.

page 3576

QUESTION

REFERENDA: COST

Mr COOKE:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Services and Property. What is the estimated cost of conducting the referenda on 8 December next? Secondly, will, the Minister ensure that official publications by the Electoral Office use correct English and refer to ‘referenda’, not ‘referendums’?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Just from memory I cannot give the honourable member the exact cost, but I have it available and I may be able to give it to him before the end of question time. The second part of his question will be taken into consideration. Naturally his request will be fulfilled because when legal men of his great capacity put these matters forward we always like to give them the consideration to which they are entitled.

page 3576

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a leaflet entitled ‘The National Health Insurance Program - The Plain Truth’ circulated in the Australian Capital Territory by the General Practitioners Society of Australia? In particular, I ask whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the question and answer in this booklet as follows:

  1. What hospital benefits would I get?
  2. You will be able to obtain a public hospital ward bed, with up to 30 other patients. You will have to take out additional private insurance if you want a private room or private hospital treatment and the doctor of your choice.

Are this question and answer relevant to the conditions that now exist in the Australian Capital Territory?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I have seen this pamphlet which contains a number of questions and I suppose this particular one is the only one with special relevance to Canberra hospitals. I think that when it speaks of up to 30 beds it may be taken as misleading if it is taken by people in the Australian Capital Territory to refer to Canberra’s hospitals. We have at Woden Valley Hospital and Canberra Hospital 4 beds in the great majority of wards - a few may have six - and also single bed wards which are quite modern. In one or two areas in the obstetrics and geriatric departments there are up to 6 beds and there are a few temporary geriatric wards at Canberra Hospital with 10 beds. These will cease to exist when we complete stage 2 of the Woden Valley Hospital which should be early in April next year.

page 3576

QUESTION

PASSPORTS

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration. Why is it that people who have Australian passports, and who therefore have been appropriately investigated, every time they leave Australia or return have to fill in a detailed questionnaire, stating their matrimonial status, their past marriages, whether they are widows or otherwise? Why does the Minister require this information? Or is it just a hangover from over zealous statisticians collecting useless information and requiring computers to put it through?

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If a person holds a valid passport, he can come and go as an Australian citizen without any let or hindrance. If he applies for a further passport certain requirements have to be met which are designed mainly to ensure that no matrimonial difficulties have arisen in the meantime and to ensure also that protection is given to children. The honourable member might know that one of the difficulties that we have been encountering in recent times as a result of the increased mobility of the population is that when there is a breakdown of a marriage there is a tendency for one of the partners to decamp with the children. There have been great difficulties in this respect; there are scattered across the world in a number of countries separated parents and children who are presently the subject of international litigation in which my Department is involved because the parents, being Australian citizens, turn to the Department and request help from it. I would say that I know of no unnecessary formalities, but if the honourable member feels that we could undertake some further streamlining of procedures, I would be delighted to do it. However, during the debate on the Estimates yesterday I did say that passports are, now being issued, on average, in 72 hours as compared with 14 days some years ago.

page 3577

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO CHINA

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. When he was in China recently did he call on Prince Norodom Sihanouk with the Australian Ambassador to China, Dr Fitzgerald, and his personal private secretary, Dr Wilenski? Was this visit made against the advice of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and did those who had advised against the visit include the then about-to4>e Secretary of the Department, Mr Alan .Renouf? Is it true that over the weekend his Government has announced Australia’s withdrawal from the currency stabilisation agreement entered into with a number of other countries to back the currency of the Khmer Republic under the Lon Nol Government? Will the Prime Minister advise this House why the Australian Government took the decision it did at the weekend? Will he advise the House whether any assurance was given to Prince Norodom Sihanouk as to this action at the time of his meeting in Peking and will he assure the House that there was no request or undertaking given from either party at the time of that Peking visit that in any way related to the announcement by the Australian Government at the weekend?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I could not take a note of all the questions the honourable gentleman asked me. I shall, however, answer those of which I was able to take a note. Yes, on my latest visit to Peking I conferred with Prince Norodom Sihanouk in the company of Dr Fitzgerald, our Ambassador to the People’s

Republic of China, and Dr Wilenski, my principal private secretary. Dr Fitzgerald took a note of the conversation and has given it to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I did not discuss with officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and specifically I did not discuss with the secretary designate, Mr Alan Renouf, whether they thought that I should or should not confer with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. I have answered questions in Peking and in Canberra about my visit.

The Australian Government considered the quesion of continuing to support the currency stabilisation arrangements in Cambodia as a result of the Coombs taks force report which honourable gentlemen have had available to them for nearly 3 months. No announcement was made by the Australian Government last weekend; the only announcements appear from the decisions on the Coombs task force report. If there is a ceasefire in Cambodia, as there has been now in Vietnam and in Laos, the Australian Government will reconsider the utility or propriety of helping to stabilise Cambodia’s currency. I might add that the Australian Government will do all it can to bring the hostilities in Cambodia to an end. It will do nothing to protract those hostilities by support, military or economic, for either of the contending parties.

page 3577

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: DR KISSINGER’S LETTER

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister know how a letter - presumably a private letter - addressed to him by Dr Kissinger came into the possession of the honourable member for Kooyong? Further, does the Prime Minister consider that this poaching of confidential correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister sets adequate standards of behaviour for this House?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am certain that the honourable member for Kooyong has not seen a copy of any letter ‘between the Secretary of State of the United States of America and me, or he would not have spoken as he did yesterday. I would not impute any mischievous motives to the honourable gentleman. The honourable gentleman spoke yesterday as if ‘Dr Kissinger and I had corresponded in the context of the alert which applied on 25 October 1973 to the United States including, without official information to Australia, the North West Cape station. Dr Kissinger had written to me on 20 October, in the particular context of emphasising the important role for Australia to play in the Security Council since Australia’s ambassador to the United Nations was President in that month. He took the opportunity to assure me of his intention to consult willi me and our representatives about America’s efforts to bring about a cease fire in the Middle East. He wrote on 20 October. On 21 October I wrote back assuring him of our complete support in his efforts to bring about a ceasefire and saying that we would apply those efforts both in the Security Council and outside. Later - I forget the date - appreciation was conveyed, but not in a letter, of the efforts of Australia’s ambassador to the United Nations as President of the Security Council. The correspondence took place well before the alert, had no reference to it, and the Secretary of State and the State Department very much appreciate what Australia did while our ambassador was President of the Security Council.

page 3578

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Telefunken Co., patent holder of the phase alternating line - PAL - colour television system, will not allow colour television components or sets to be imported into this country for 2 years after the introduction of colour television in Australia? If this is so, will the Prime Minister explain how the Australian consumer will actually benefit from his promise of lower priced colour television sets if the local manufacturers cannot be kept honest by actual or threatened import competition from overseas sets?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– There have been stories. At the present time there may be a basis for the story that restrictive arrangements have been imposed by A.G. Telefunken on the phase alternating line system. The Cabinet decided on Monday that consultation should take place on that question. We are optimistic that those restrictive practices will be abandoned and that Australia will therefore be able to get prompt and cheap advantage from this system which has been pioneered by Telefunken. I should add that it will obviously be open to and obligatory on the Prices Justification Tribunal to examine the mark-ups which are imposed on any electronic goods, such as colour television sets, by companies whose operations exceed $20m a year. The principal electronic companies in Australia are covered by the Prices Justification Tribunal.

page 3578

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Balaclava pointed out to me that the Country Party members in this chamber have asked 2 questions in succession. That is correct. I am only bringing them up on the score board.

page 3578

QUESTION

OIL SUPPLIES TO JAPAN: EFFECT ON AUSTRALIA

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, concerns the reported proposals of the Japanese Government to reduce industrial output in response to the cutback of oil from the Middle East. Could these measures result in an economic recession in Japan? Could a Japanese economic recession be almost as unfavourable for Australia as for Japan itself? Will the Prime Minister initiate an urgent inquiry into the effects of the proposed Japanese economic measures on Australia? Could this inquiry also include discussions with the Japanese Government on a co-ordinated plan to cushion the effects on Australia of the oil embargo to Japan?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It would probably be true to say that economic developments in Japan would now have a bigger impact on Australia than economic developments in, say, the United States or Britain because Australia and Japan, as the Government of each country recognises, are very important to each other in the economic sense and now in a very great number of other fields as well. According to our information, Japan is receiving reduced supplies of oil as a result of the recent decision by some Middle East countries to reduce production. At present we have insufficient authoritative information on the precise extent of the reduction of imports of oil into Japan. The importance of oil for Japanese industry is reflected in the decision by the Japanese Cabinet on 16 November to introduce an oil conservation program. Twelve industries, including the steel, automobile, shipbuilding and petrochemical industries, have been requested to cut consumption of oil and power by 10 per cent. At this early stage in developments the Australian Government is keeping a close watch on the situation generally and for any developments in Japan which may have implications for Australia.

page 3579

QUESTION

NAVAL PATROL BOATS

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Defence, concerns patrol boats. I ask: Does the honourable gentleman agree that patrol boats now in service with the Royal Australian Navy fulfil a more than useful role carrying out fisheries protection, surveillance duties and sovereignty visits? If so, will he give to the House an explanation as to why the Government has decided to give patrol boats to Indonesia?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– The decision to provide 2 Attack class patrol boats to Indonesia is part of the defence aid program to that country. Naturally, the patrol boat that was handed over to Indonesia last weekend would have required considerable modification for Australia’s requirements, However, on the question of patrol boats generally, I agree with what the honourable member has said. It is the Government’s attitude that it is, and will remain, predominantly the responsibility of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force to maintain effective patrols so far as fisheries and customs requirements of Australia are concerned. The Government has under consideration proposals that will increase the capability of Australia in relation to customs activities and, as I have explained to the honourable member, to fisheries activities as well. This additional capability will almost certainly require additional patrol boats. This matter is now under consideration and when a decision has been made it will be announced at the appropriate time.

page 3579

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to objections raised recently by spokesmen against the Government’s health insurance program about a Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics survey on health benefits cover which the Minister used. Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider those objections? Would he care to modify his figures, and would he care to comment?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The last part of the question, in regard to comment, is completely out of order. The Minister is entitled to answer that part of the question which relates to figures.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am sorry about that because most of all I should like to comment. Last week in this House the Opposition spokesman on health and welfare matters questioned the accuracy of a reference in the White Paper on our health insurance program. The reference related to a Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics survey No. 17.7 on the cover for health benefit type programs available in the community. It was pointed out in the report that the present scheme covers about 87.7 per cent of the population. The spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Hotham, suggested that the cover did not include repatriation entitlements, and that the latter represented 2 per cent of the population. While it is true that local medical officer cover covers about 2 per cent of the population, in fact the bald figures are quite misleading. For instance, only 91,300 of such people are entitled to full treatment as single people. There are about 55,400 people who are married but have no entitlements for their dependants and, accordingly, have to take out private insurance for their dependants and, if there are children, that insurance has to be taken out at the married rate. There are 186,000 people who receive treatment only for accepted disabilities, which means they must take out medical and hospital insurance for any other sort of treatment they require. So honourable members will see that this figure is quite misleading. If we allow for those 93,300 people receiving full treatment and a proportion of those-

Mr McLeay:

– I rise to take a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to question on notice No. 1358, which I believe is along the lines of the question now being answered.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Question on notice No. 1358 refers to people who are not covered.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He does not need your help. Mr Speaker, you only take orders from the Prime Minister.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is bad enough taking advice from me. It would be worse taking it from the honourable member.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question on the notice paper has no bearing to this answer. The Minister is now referring to those people who are covered, not to those who are not covered.

Mr HAYDEN:

– As I was saying, if we allow for those 91,300 people receiving full single treatment and for a proportion of the married people who receive full treatment, but not for their dependants, the proportion is much less than 1 per cent. Without wearying the House further, the important and major matter I wanted to raise concerns 2 quotations from a letter from Mr O’Neill, the Commonwealth Statistician, to whom I wrote so that there will be no doubt about what I am about to say because it is in writing. Mr O’Neill replied in response to my query:

I confirm that the survey did not specifically include in its questionnaire reference to cover by Repatriation in medical services but on the other hand it did not specifically exclude such cover.

He then said:

Although Repatriation medical benefits are not specifically mentioned, persons eligible for full medical benefits from Repatriation funds and for free treatment in Repatriation hospitals would almost certainly be described as covered.

So honourable members can see that the assumptions of the honourable member for Hotham were quite wrong. If, in fact, he makes allowances, as I have indicated, for the double cover of people receiving repatriation benefits but who are forced to take out private hospital and medical insurance and for people entitled to pensioner medical services who under the present system for procedural items of specialist care and for non-public ward treatment also have to take out private medical and hospital insurance - on the medical side there is quite a large number - the figure that I have cited would tend to overstate the degree of the cover in the community.

Mr Chipp:

– Mr Speaker,I rise to order. The Minister has quoted from a document. Under the appropriate standing order, I ask him to table it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am happy to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Chipp:

– I seek to have the full letter incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dear Mr Hayden,

I thank you for your letter of today’s date in which you have asked for confirmation of a telephone statement on the coverage of ‘Persons covered by Hospital and Medical Expenditure Assistance Schemes’- the Preliminary Statement published by this Bureau in May 1972, and for an outline of Schemes other than the Pensioner Medical Service which are embraced in the term ‘non-contributory’.

  1. I confirm that the survey did not specifically include in its questionnaire reference to cover by Repatriation in medical services but on the other hand it did not specifically exclude such cover.
  2. The respondent was first questioned as to whether he was covered by a hospital or medical benefits fund. If he said ‘yes’, he was further questioned as to who paid into the fund or scheme. An acceptable answer was ‘coverage is free’. If he said he was not covered by a fund he was further asked whether he was covered by any health insurance scheme which cost nothing.
  3. The specific instructions to help interviewers mentioned the following examples of free coverage for hospital and medical benefits.

Persons in receipt of: age pensions invalid pensions widow’s pensions sheltered employment allowance service pensions certain persons undergoing rehabilitation persons receiving an allowance under the Tuberculosis Act dependent wife (or other female) children or student children of the foregoing persons persons receiving unemployment, sickness or special benefits low income families entitled to medical coverage and hospital benefits migrants who have joined a scheme - paid for by government for the first two months

  1. I do not have any more exhaustive list of the schemes of a non-contributory nature. Although Repatriation medical benefits are not specifically mentioned, persons eligible for full medical benefits from Repatriation funds and for free treatment in Repatriation hospitals would almost certainly be described as covered. On the other hand if there were partial entitlement only, it is possible that a person could describe himself as not covered. This would be in line with the Queensland experience where many persons have been recorded as uncovered, because they have no medical coverage, and do not regard being entitled to free public ward treatment in hospitals as being covered by a scheme.

Yours faithfully,

  1. P. O’NEILL, Commonwealth Statistician
Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I believe that whilst I was looking at the notice paper earlier the honourable member for Griffith had something to say about the Chair being directed by the Prime Minister. Is that correct?

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right; I did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Well, obviously you-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will withdraw for the sake of peace.

Mr SPEAKER:

– And apologise to the Chair.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I apologise to the Chair.

page 3581

QUESTION

EASY VISITOR SYSTEM

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration. Is it a fact that the new easy visitor system which he introduced earlier this year has been suspended? If so, does he intend to reintroduce the system and if so, when?

Mr GRASSBY:
ALP

– It is not true that the easy visitor system which I introduced earlier this year has been suspended. It continues in all but a limited number of locations where the system was suspended because of the situation that existed in regard to international terrorists. I am pleased to say that generally speaking the system is working well. It is still in force and it has brought from some areas a considerable increase in the number of visitors. I stress that the system can proceed only on the basis that those who come as visitors fulfil the conditions of their visit and return at the end of it. The visas are not interchangeable. I add that I am particularly pleased with the precautions that have been taken in certain locations where there have been international tensions and a danger of terrorist activities. Those precautions have kept Australia free from incursions which might otherwise have taken place. So in conjunction with other agencies of state I am particularly pleased with the success of the continuing precautions that we will take there. That means that in a limited number of locations the easy visitor system will continue to be suspended. But generally speaking the system is in operation; it is working well.

page 3581

QUESTION

REVALUATION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. Has the Australian dollar been revalued by approximately 2 per cent since the beginning of November due to the fact that it is tied to the American dollar - a practice described by one Minister as one that is adopted by mugs and hillbillies? Is this revaluation by stealth advantageous to Australia or does it indicate that economically we are not masters of our destiny in this real area of national interest?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not think I need repeat to this House the independent action that has been taken on at least 3 occasions by the present Government in regard to the exchange levels. When one currency rate moves, whether it is the yen or the United States dollar, it does have some impact on our currency. The answer I give about exchange rates is - and I am pleased to be able to repeat it in this House: The Australian exchange rate can stay where it is; it can rise; it can fall; it can float. I have all options still open.

page 3581

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that spokesmen for the Liberal and Australian Country Parties and the Australian Democratic Labor Party have decided that the answer to the present second rate pensioner medical service, which they uncritically supported during the previous Government’s term of office, is to enrol pensioners in the subsidised health benefits plan? Have these spokesmen also criticised Labor’s scheme on the ground of its excessive cost? Will the Minister inform the House as to the cost of enrolling pensioners and other low income groups in the subsidised health benefits plan? Will he also indicate how this would benefit these low income groups? What other groups may benefit from this arrangement?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– If those pensioners entitled to benefits under the pensioner medical service were to be covered by the subsidised health insurance program - assuming that were possible because every effort to cover all people so far has failed with only four in every 100 low income families being covered so far - many of them would in fact be squeezed out because the income eligibility levels are much lower than they are for the pensioner medical service. It would mean that 650,000 single pensioners and 65,000 married pensioners would be squeezed out. Under the pensioner medical service the income eligibility level for a single person is $49.50, including pension, and for a married couple it is $86.50, with the levels rising in relation to any additional dependant who might be involved. It is inconceivable that either the Liberal Party or the DLP would want to squeeze people out from the benefits that they currently enjoy. Accordingly a higher limit would be set and many other people who are not currently covered would be covered by the subsidised health insurance benefits scheme.

The costing within my Department indicates that if this were done the additional cost of covering pensioners would be $160m and for non-pensioner people who would come into the scheme the cost would be $140m, making a total of $300m. This would be additional to the total cost of the present scheme, including the pensioner medical service, hospital benefits, repatriation and local medical officer services. Our scheme will cover everyone in the community. It will cover them all automatically, including groups which currently miss out on the subsidised health insurance scheme as it relates to the present system of health insurance, at no extra cost than the total cost of the present scheme which covers only 87.7 per cent of the population. An additional $300m is a lot of money for a first aid effort to patch up a virtually defunct scheme.

page 3582

QUESTION

BROKEN HILL PTY CO. LTD

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will recall the comments by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd that the Prices Justification Tribunal had not given an explanation of the grounds on which it, the Tribunal, reached its decision on BHP prices and the Tribunal’s own comment that it had not been given the criteria it needed to make its decisions. Does the Prime Minister regard such a stab in the dark method as satisfactory? Will he give an assurance that if the Government is given price and income control powers proper criteria will be laid down for the application of these powers? Finally, will the Prime Minister make it clear to the Australian people before they vote on 8 December just what these criteria will be?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd certainly did not use any such term as ‘stab in the dark*. I remember that comments were made by BHP on Mr Justice Moore’s findings early in the year and again on the findings of the Prices Justification Tribunal last month. I do not dispute the right of BHP to make these comments. In fact I appreciate that BHP has so willingly accepted the Government’s policy in this respect and has abided by the findings of the judges who have inquired into the Company’s affairs. It was a matter of deliberate policy by the Government to have the Tribunal established and to have good appointments made to it so that we could observe the whole system in practice. We did not presume to ask the Parliament to lay down guidelines for the conduct of the Tribunal. We believed that the persons we were appointing to the Tribunal would be in an excellent position - a better position in fact than at this stage members of the Parliament on either side are - to draw up such guidelines. We want to give the Tribunal an opportunity to work these matters out in practice. Where it becomes clear that amendments are desirable to the Act we promptly will sponsor those amendments in the Parliament.

Mr Anthony:

– The people will be voting blindly in that case on what you actually intend to do.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have said before and I repeat that it is desirable to have an unchallengeable right in this Parliament to establish a prices justification tribunal. So far none of the bodies which have come before the Tribunal has defied its findings, but there is doubt as to the sanctions which can be applied by the Tribunal.

When the Parliament gets power to pass laws with regard to prices it will put the powers of the Tribunal beyond challenge. Nevertheless there is no reason at this stage to suggest that the Tribunal is not acting with complete propriety and justice. It is hearing all sides. It is giving its reasons. I believe the public is supporting the method of operation of the Tribunal. Nobody has cavilled at the appointments and I believe the Tribunal deserves the support of the Parliament. When, as it will, the Tribunal makes reports to the Parliament it will be entitled to suggest amendments to legislation. This is what happens in the annual report of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and in the annual report of the Trade Practices Commissioner. One would expect that the President of the Prices Justification Tribunal similarly will feel free to make suggestions for alterations to the basic statute. I can assure the House that the Government will act promptly on any recommendation that the President makes in his annual report or which he makes on any interim occasion. I believe the Tribunal is acting in the way that the Parliament expected when it passed the Act and as the public would hope.

1975 ASIAN LABOUR MINISTERS CONFERENCE

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– Is the Minister for Labour able to inform the House whether the Government has yet considered whether Australia will host the 1975 Asian Labour Ministers Conference?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Australian Government, at the Asian Labour Minister’s Conference in Tokyo this year, was invited to host the 1975 Asian Labour Ministers Conference. That Australia should have been chosen at that Tokyo Conference to host this terribly important Asian Conference was a great honour bestowed on the Australian people. Members of the House will be pleased to know, I am sure, that we have with us today a delegation from the Japanese worker movement who are visiting Australia.

Honourable members - Hear, Hear!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This visit indicates the importance which the Japanese Government pays to the whole question of creating a better understanding between our 2 countries. The young men and women who are here today will, I am sure, be able to contribute a tremendous amount to the growing friendship between our 2 great countries. I have discussed this matter with the Prime Minister and I am pleased now to be able to announce that the Government will host the Asian Labour Ministers Conference in 1975.

Mr Whitlam:

– And there will be a statesman in the chair.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As the Prime Minister points out, there will be a statesman in the chair. At the Asian Labour Ministers Conference, in Tokyo, I was appointed vicechairman. All present joined in saying that my chairmanship was something that was to be envied. I must say that I felt that they were quite sincere in this statement. In public life, one usually knows when one is doing a good job and when one is not, and I knew that I was at my best in Tokyo. It was a splendid conference. Great credit is due to the Government of Mr Tanaka for the way in which that Conference was organised. The Japanese delegation which is present today will be gratified to know that the Prime Minister himself will officially receive them shortly.

page 3583

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– Is it a fact that in his recent guest editorial in the Pharmacy Guild Journal Contact’ the Minister for Social Security claimed that the Labor Government had generously increased dispensing fees for pharmaceutical benefits and made-up prescriptions by 8c, and that this action had been constantly rejected by the previous Government? Are the real facts that the Labor Government simply agreed to continue to act in accordance with agreements made between the Liberal Government and the pharmacists early in 1972? Is it a fact that the Minister has again been caught out using the type of misrepresentation and distorted propaganda which he so constantly complains of in others?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I am deeply wounded at this personal attack. Nevertheless I commend the honourable member for his reading material; it has improved in recent times. I would not, if I were he, commend the past practices of the last governments in their treatment of the pharmacy profession. I was a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits. The repeated complaint of the pharmacy profession in the course of that inquiry was that on one occasion several years ago when there was an agreed formula between the Government and the profession for updating the rates of payment to the profession, and when that formula gave a substantial and, in the view of the profession and many who support it, a justified increase in those rates of payment, the Government said that it was a rather unusual rate of increase and refused to provide the full amount. It destroyed credibility and confidence between the Government and the profession. They were destroyed by the Government of that period and not by the profession. The fact is that the payments were made without any demur at all by my colleague, the Minister for Health who - I commend him for this - is at last restoring proper, amiable and constructive relations between the pharmacy profession and the Australian Government. Those relations were badly tattered by the treatment that the profession received at the hands of preceding governments.

page 3583

QUESTION

APEX CLUBS: POSTAGE RATES

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Postmaster-General received letters from the Apex Clubs of

Australia protesting against a proposal by the Post Office to alter the postage rate on their fortnightly journals by transferring it from category A to a higher rate? Has this organisation any cause for concern that its mail rates will be increased in the next 12 months?

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

– It is true that a lot of correspondence has been received from the Apex Clubs on the basis that they might have been removed from the concessional category A. As was admitted here when the Parliament fixed the categories and the rates of postage, a slight increase was made in the category A rate.

Mr Nixon:

– A slight increase!

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the Minister face the Country Party?

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

– As I was saying, the Parliament made a decision on the postage rates. I inform the honourable member that the Apex Clubs will remain in category A, which is the category which receives the greatest concession.

page 3584

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Did the Minister for Social Security tell the Prime Minister before the Prime Minister’s election speech that about $500m would be needed from Consolidated Revenue to finance the health scheme in its first year of operation? If he did not, why did he not? If he did, in view of his constant complaint about misrepresentation can he explain, and has he protested to the Prime Minister about, the blatant misrepresentation practised in that pre-election speech as illustrated by the fact that there was no mention whatsoever of this huge additional sum of money amounting to an average of about $80 per taxpayer which will come indirectly from that taxpayer and which will be additional to the 1.35 per cent of his taxable income?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I am afraid that I cannot follow what the honourable member is trying to put, and I do not think that anyone else can either. The fact is that the total cost of our health insurance scheme will be no greater than the total cost of . the present scheme. If the honourable member cares to read the White Paper on the Australian health insurance program - even though there are more than 3 pages in the paper, fairly simple words are used and the honourable member will not find them too difficult - and if he can persevere for long enough to reach the last sentence of the last paragraph of the last chapter, he will see that the paper states:

The total net cost to the Budget, including the effect of tax deductions, will be approximately the same as would be the case under the existing health insurance scheme.

That is, there is no greater cost to be borne by the community. Let us be clear on this: Our scheme automatically will cover everyone in the community for the same cost as the present scheme incurs. But the present scheme does not cover everyone and never can, even with massive injections of the community’s money. That is the only response inadequate, as it is, that has come from members of the Opposition. Let us be clear that these are the people who had the present system of health insurance in operation for more than 2 decades and at the end of that time the scheme was still seriously defective and riddled with anomalies.

One of the first things I did when I became Minister for Social Security was, for instance, to amend the regulations so that in a situation in which a mother is in a maternity ward of a hospital with an infant child who is under 10 days old and requires intensive treatment that child is covered for medical and hospital benefit purposes. Under the administration of a succession of conservative governments-

Mr Chipp:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order-

Mr HAYDEN:

– . . . made up of representatives now on the Opposition benches there was no such cover and they took no such steps-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hotham has raised a point of order.

Mr Chipp:

– The point of order that I am raising is that the Minister is debating a White Paper which the Government steadfastly has refused honourable members on this side of the House an opportunity to debate. The question asked by the honourable member for Indi was a simple question about costs. It was not an invitation for the Minister to canvass the whole of the White Paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Since the White Paper was introduced there has been a debate on the estimates for the Department of Health in which only 2 members of the Opposition sought to discuss the health insurance program. Out of the several who appeared in the debate, those two only introduced any debate on this topic after we challenged them to do so. Honourable members opposite either do not comprehend what the program is about or they are too lazy to come to grips with it. A debate has been initiated by a private member on the Opposition side. No effort at all to initiate such a debate has been made by any so-called spokesmen on the Opposition side. The Health Insurance Planning Committee report has been available for several months. It was tabled in this Parliament. No efforts were made to initiate a debate in this Parliament on that report. If the Opposition is so keen to debate the proposed program it had better rest up, because I expect to introduce the appropriate legislation next week.

page 3585

QUESTION

COST OF REFERENDA

Mr DALY:
ALP

– I seek the indulgence of the House to answer in full a question asked earlier today by the honourable member for Petrie. The answer to his question is on page 3326 of Hansard of 14 November 1973, in the record of the debate on the Constitution alteration legislation. As all the figures are there, in order to make the answer to the honourable member’s question complete, I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 3585

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes. In answer to a question this morning directed to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), the Prime Minister said that I had used a letter which had been forwarded to him by Dr Kissinger in regard to his criticism of the United States administration’s international alert to its forces. I did not. In the course of debate yesterday I was critical of the Government for its conduct of foreign relations and dealt with this in specific areas. So far as the AustralianAmerican relations are concerned, I dealt with 2 specific issues. The first was to criticise the Prime Minister for the remarks he had passed about the United States international alert. The second was to criticise the Prime Minister for his criticism of the United States administration’s supply of arms to the State of Israel. It was in relation to that second question that I used part of the information contained in the letter from Dr Kissinger to the Prime Minister. It seems clear to me that the Prime Minister is as muddled now as he was at his National Press Club luncheon.

Mr Whitlam:

– This is not a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Kooyong is now debating the issue. In making a personal explanation an honourable member may only explain where he alleges he has been misrepresented. The honourable member cannot open up a debate.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I understand. So there was the first matter, which was the criticism of the United States administration’s international alert to its forces, which Dr Kissinger had answered. He had answered it on 25 October, when he had indicated that the National Security Council -

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, there is no misrepresentation which the honourable gentleman has identified to this stage. I ask you to bring him to the point. I did not misrepresent him at all.

Mr PEACOCK:

– All right; I will repeat it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Honourable members on both sides of the House are repeatedly using personal explanations as a vehicle to have a few digs or to have a few words broadcast over the air. If the honourable gentleman has been misrepresented I ask him to state specifically where he has been misrepresented.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I will return to what I commenced saying at the beginning of my personal explanation. The Prime Minister stated that I had used this letter to which I have referred in the context of the criticism of the United States administration’s international alert to its forces. I did not. I deal now with the specific misrepresentation. Having made those points about the international alert, I then said - and I quote from page 3498 of Hansard:

To make it even worse, if that is possible, it follows the occasion

A separate occasion, I might say - last month when the Prime Minister trenchantly criticised the United States Administration for sending arms to Israel, arms that were forwarded subsequent to the massive re-supply by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Arabs. I am advised that such criticism

That is, the critcism of the supply of arms, the international alert - caused Dr Kissinger to write to the Prime Minister explaining the true position. I am advised further

As the Prime Minister has indicated today - that it was a temperate letter, couched in diplomatic language, but its message was clear:

Then I went on to indicate some ‘further aspects with which I will not deal now. The Prime Minister has utilised my reference to that letter quite incorrectly today as if it was in regard to the international alert. It seems to me that just as the staff of the Prime Minister was wrong -

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker -

Mr PEACOCK:

– Just a minute. It does relate to the matter I am raising.

Mr Uren:

– I rise to order. In what way in a personal explanation does the honourable member for Kooyong have a special privilege to say: ‘It seems to me . . .’? In what way does this matter relate to the personal explanation?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Kooyong has no special privilege. As I understand it, this is a very involved matter relating to Dr Kissinger’s letter. I think that the honourable member for Kooyong is in order so far but I ask him to bring his point to a conclusion and not to debate the matter.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I accept that. In conclusion I will say that it is perhaps understandable that the Prime Minister was misled and misrepresented me this morning. It appears that his staff also misled people last night because the report in the ‘Financial Review’ says that the staff of the Prime Minister indicated that no such letter existed yet also said, according to a report in the Australian’, that the letter did exist. The Prime Minister this morning has confirmed that it did.

Mr Uren:

– I again rise to order. Mr Speaker, what does this have to do with a personal explanation? I am asking you not to give these so-called chosen people special privileges.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a reflection on the Chair and I ask the Minister to withdraw the implication. The Minister cannot say things like that.

Mr Uren:

– If there is any reflection on the Chair, I withdraw it.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, not only I but my staff too. I think it is a particularly miserable device to refer to people’s staff. For better or for worse members of Parliament, Ministers, Leaders of the Opposition, take responsibility or get credit for the actions of their staff. A great number of questions were directed to members of my staff yesterday after the speech that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) made asking whether Dr Kissinger had written to me after my comments at the National Press Club on the alert. The simple fact is that he did not and he has not. Dr Kissinger has written one letter to me. It was not only diplomatic, as the honourable gentleman says; it was cordial and it was written in the context of commending our efforts, Australia’s efforts as President-

Mr Peacock:

– Would you like to table the letter?

Mr WHITLAM:

– If the honourable gentleman wants me to ask Dr Kissinger whether I can table the letter and the reply I will ask. But he should know quite well that one does not table correspondence or cables between foreign ministers or heads of government. It does not happen. The honourable gentleman seeks to take advantage of any ignorance there may be on that point by asking me to table it. He knows perfectly well that I cannot table without permission. If he wants me to seek permission I will be very happy to seek it and to table the letter. The fact is that the honourable gentleman is trying to make mischief in this context. As I said in an answer at question time, Dr Kissinger wrote the letter which he delivered through the American Ambassador, praising our efforts in the chair at the Security Council to bring about a ceasefire, assuring us that he would be consulting with us and saying that he would be going to Moscow. Promptly I assured him that we would do all we could in the Security Council and outside to bring about a ceasefire, applauding his initiative in going to Moscow and wishing him well in it. There was nothing that anybody could derive from Dr Kissinger’s letter in the least way critical of the Australian Government’s actions, reactions or initiatives. Afterwards the State Department let the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs know how much it appreciated the skill with which our ambassador to the United Nations had conducted the affairs of the Security Council while he was in the chair.

I asked yesterday that the honourable gentleman should give some support to the efforts that the present Australian Government has made, as all previous Australian governments have made, to be even handed in the disputes in the Middle East. I am merely following the traditional Australian policy in this respect. I believe it would be much more helpful if the spokesman for the Opposition at least would acknowledge that the present Australian Government is doing what its predecessors have always done - to be even handed and neutral in the Middle East.

page 3587

SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the tenth quinquennial investigation of the Superannuation Fund as at 30 June 1973.

page 3587

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science and Minister for External Territories · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Australian Film Development Corporation Act 1970, I present the third annual report of the Australian Film Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 3587

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FROM DEPARTMENT FILES

Ministerial Statement

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley - Minister for Social

Security) - by leave - Last week I revealed in this House that there has been fairly widespread access to personal information on clients of the Department of Social Security, recorded within the Department. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of the various agencies which have had this access.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– As honourable members will see, the list is extensive in number and varied in source. I also seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a further list. This is a condensed version of the longer list I have just had incorporated and gives general details of the grounds on which access can be sought and the procedures that are supposed to be adopted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am aware from several personal comments from reputable or responsible officers in the Department at various offices of the Department in different parts of the country that, no doubt due to some slackness which may have crept in over time, these procedures have not been followed as strictly as is required by instructions. I will refer to this later. I should state from the start that no doubt when arrangements were made to. allow this access the arrangements were entered into with the best intentions and generally, I expect, they were entered into when contemporary attitudes towards personal privacy were not as keenly developed as they are today. The original 1908 Invalid and Old Age Pensions Act made no provision for the protection of privacy, so I am advised.

The first occasion on which specific provisions regulating disclosure of information about clients was included specifically in legislation occurred in the Child Endowment Act 1941. This was repeated in subsequent legislation. The Social Services Consolidation Act 1947 included provisions for regulating disclosure of information. This was included in section 17 of that Act which, with amendment, is the same section providing regulation in this matter in the Social Services Act 1947- 1973. I will refer to this section again shortly. I understand from verbal advice I received from an officer of my Department that access to personal files held in the Department by non-departmental sources can be traced back to 1934 and probably extends to even earlier dates.

In 1948 the then Minister for Social Services, Senator McKenna, seems to have felt some concern about the way in which access to personal files was available. He sought to regularise the procedures. I dare say that at that time, a quarter of a century ago, Senator McKenna’s efforts were in harmony with contemporary attitudes; but that is too far back in the dim distant past for me to have clear recollections of what contemporary values were then on such things. What is clear is that our society today has a much more sensitive regard for personal rights with respect of privacy and confidentiality of personal information provided on trust and in confidence to official bodies. A quarter of a century ago there were no computers with the aweinspiring capacity to store and rapidly retrieve comprehensive records from central storage units.

I think it a sobering thought for all of us to reflect on the enormous amount of detail which is stored in the computer records of the Department of Social Security. For instance, our computer bank has detailed information on over 1,870,000 families in Australia including their addresses. These are families where there is at least one child under 16 years and where child endowment is paid. It is possible to establish which children do and which do not go onto higher educa-tion because of the transition to student endowment; and again personal details on these young people can be retrieved. Similary we have extremely comprehensive data on over 1,100,000 age and invalid pensioners, on over 126,000 widow pensioners and women receiving supporting mother’s benefit and on some 396,000 cases in which unemployment, sickness benefits and special benefits were granted last year. This personal information in most cases includes full details of thenfinancial position, their assets, legacies, personal business/ financial transactions, as well as their whereabouts. We can pinpoint every birth, we know whether the mother was single or married, who was the father of the child and so on because of our payment of maternity allowances. As honourable members can see there is considerable potential in such records, if they were to get into the wrong hands or through abuse of privilege, for embarrassing or even damaging misuse.

It is as well that I now move on to an explanation of the legislation controlling the access to informtaion held in personal files held by the Department. Section 17 of the Social Services Act is the relevant section and it says:

  1. An officer shall, if the Minister or the DirectorGeneral so directs, before entering upon his duties, or exercising any powers or functions, under this Act, make before a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner for Declarations a declaration in accordance with the prescribed form.
  2. A person shall not, directly or indirectly, except in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act, and while he is or after he ceases to be, an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information with respect to the affairs of another person acquired by him in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act.

Penalty: Five hundred dollars

  1. A person who is, or has been, an officer shall not, except for the purposes of this Act, be required:

    1. to produce in court any document that has come into his possession or under his control in the performance of his duties or functions under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act; or
    2. to divulge or communicate to a court any matter or thing that has come under his notice in the performance of any such duties or functions.

  2. Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this section, an officer may:

    1. if the ‘Minister or the Director-General certifies that it is necessary in the public interest that any information acquired by the officer in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act, should be divulged, divulge that information to such person as the Minister or the Director-General directs;
    2. to divulge or communicate to a court any authority or person; or
    3. divulge any such information to a person who, in the opinion of the Director-General, is expressly or impliedly authorised by the person to whom the information relates to obtain it.
  3. An authority or person to whom information is divulged under the last preceding subsection, and any person or employee under the control of that authority or person, shall, in respect of that information, be subject to the same rights, privileges, obligation and liabilities under subsections (2) and (3) of this section as if he were a person performing duties under this Act and had acquired the information in the performance of those duties.
  4. In this section, ‘officer’ includes a person who has performed duties, or exercised powers or functions, under, or in relation to any Act repealed by this Act.

As honourable members will note section 17 is very loose and this is particularly so of subsection 4 of section 17.

First I should indicate the general approach the Department has followed until now in the release of information. The Department has 3 lists of authorities to whom it divulges information under section 17 (4). They are: A. Commonwealth and State departments and other bodies expending public moneys, social security benefits or workers compensation or the like; B. Commonwealth and State departments and other bodies where expenditure of public moneys or social security benefits is not directly involved; C. Commonwealth or State departments where the protection of incoming revenues, the grant of concessions to pensioners or their liability in respect of advances and arrears of rent is involved. There is a free exchange of information with authorities in Group A. Information to the authorities in Groups B and C is, however, only furnished upon request. Again these are very generalised conditions and have allowed practices to develop which I regard, and the Government regards, as quite unsatisfactory.

Although in principle police officers are not supposed to handle personal files I have been advised by 2 senior officers of my Department and this confirms information I had received from other officers of the Department with whom I have personal contact that in practice police officers have had access to personal index cards and to personal files in a number of cases. I mentioned last week how one police officer had quite improperly used this privilege to trace his estranged wife. I understand that there have been instances in the past - 2 years ago; I have not been able to confirm whether this has occurred in more recent times - of police officers, in at least 2 States where a special fee was paid to them for serving civil summonses, using personal records in the Department to trace people on whom these summonses were to be served.

I regard it as quite improper that debt collecting agencies, such as State housing authorities, local government bodies and power distribution authorities, should be able to trace people indebted to them through personal records in the Department. I understand that most often a telephone call was the only form of request received and that this was sufficient to obtain the information sought for tracing the person concerned. Obviously this sort of loose arrangement is open to the gravest forms of abuse. I will not add colour to what I am saying by giving illustrations. I am sure honourable members will quickly apprehend the defectiveness of this sort of arrangement and the abuses that could creep in.

I am further informed that voluntary agencies have been informed of clients’ incomes on the basis of requests to the Department in cases where they proposed to provide aid to such a client. My inquiries indicate that the administration of arrangements related to the accessibility of these records has been left very much to State offices and it seems that a wide variety of practices has developed. Strangely enough practices vary between States. Obviously the whole procedure has grown unsteadily and with a want of consistency which comes of looseness.

It is as well to bear in mind that if departmental instructions had been vigorously pursued at all times much of what I regard as misuse of information by non-departmental sources would have been avoided. Even allowing that instructions had been followed, the very nature of my Department’s personal records on its clients, the absence of security measures to protect privacy and the easy and rapid retrieval of computer stored information make it proper that all procedures should be reviewed. It is intriguing to learn that guidelines laid down in 1948 by the then Minister for Social Services, Senator McKenna, on the disclosure of information by the Department have remained undisturbed for a quarter of a century. This is really nowhere near good enough. What Senator McKenna did in 1948 was probably appropriate and adequate for contemporary standards. But 1948 standards in this sensitive area are not good enough in 1973 or in future years. I propose certain actions to change these procedures, but before I discuss that I want to raise a further point.

There is an additional situation in which information has been provided from personal files. This concerns academic research. A recent instance, for which I did not give approval and about which I knew nothing, concerns access to personal files related to child endowment recipients. Professor A. H. Pollard, Professor of Economic Statistics, Macquarie University, New South Wales, in March this year was allowed this access. So that there will be no confusion on the nature of that access, I quote from a note I received from my Department on this matter:

Professor Pollard, on 22 March, 1973, during consultations with officers of this Department, outlined the objects of a survey his University was conducting into the fertility patterns of mothers residing within the Shire of Cumberland, N.S.W. The information sought was the mother’s age at the time of the birth of the first child, the time interval between subsequent births, age at the time of births of the last or most recent child and the mother’s nationality.

It was not possible to obtain the required information other than by examination of actual child endowment files. Approval was subsequently given to allow the university staff to extract the required data from child endowment files held in the Sydney office on which payment had been terminated 12 months earlier. Professor Pollard was advised on 30 March 1973, of the approval in the following terms:

As child endowment files held in our Sydney office and on which payment terminated 12 months earlier are culled for destruction each 4 weeks, they will be made available to you for examination and extraction of data regarding the ex-endowee’s child-bearing history; where the earlier portion of a file is held in archives, arrangements will be made for it to be obtained and made available to you. Experience may show that it will not be necessary to obtain the older parts of files from archives on a continuing basis, ‘but they will be made available for as long as you consider necessary.

As the material to be extracted from the files is of statistical nature, it will not be possible to identify any of the individuals involved from the published results of the survey. However, while I have complete confidence in the integrity and discretion of your staff who will be handling the files, it is perhaps necessary that I draw your attention to the provisions of section 17 - the so-called ‘secrecy provisions - of the Social Services Act. A copy of this section is attached and I would be grateful if it could be brought to the notice of your colleagues and staff who will be associated with the survey.

I understand that, in the light of the results obtained from the survey now contemplated, you may wish in the future to consider looking at the fertility characteristics of a sample of out current endowees. This may present some problems but we will be happy to examine the practicability of assisting you in this direction at the appropriate time.

It is interesting to note that Professor Pollard is both a member of the Board of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and of the Economic Advisory Council of the Australian Medical Association. He suggests there is as much relevance in this, in terms of the subject now before the House, as there is in his membership of the Longueville Presbyterian Church. There is a difference however. The Longueville Presbyterian Church has not, publicly at least, been contriving to make a major political issue out of the subject of confidentiality of personal records held by Government agencies such as a health insurance commission. Both the AMA and the MBF have. I wonder what position Professor Pollard has taken on this subject in the councils of these 2 bodies. Perhaps he justifies academic access to such files, but if he does he is at odds with the AMA and the MBF it would seem. Again, I do not want to labour this point; merely to draw attention to its gentle irony.

I am certain the Liberal Party and the Country Party would be distressed at any suggestion that the degree of access which they permitted to Department of Social Security files should extend to health insurance commission records. It will not of course, and it will cease in so far as records in the Department of Social Security are concerned.

I have instructed my Director-General that all access to personal information recorded within the Department of Social Security will be restricted to cases (a) where there is explicit written authorisation or verifiable authorisation by the client concerned (b) in extreme cases where there exist grave reasons of public interest; and in such cases approval will be decided by either the Director-General or me on each individual case. The Director-General is to report to me on all cases he approves. This is an interim measure because the issues involved are quite complex. It is clear that the matter of recording this sort of personal information and of access to it requires very careful consideration. I have accordingly contacted Senator Murphy, the Attorney-General, suggesting that the matter should be a subject for thorough consideration by the Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy. Senator Murphy agrees with the proposals and the matter is in the process of being referred to that Committee.

Mr Chipp:

– Did he give you a guarantee that he will not raid this Department?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will give a guarantee that the unacceptable practices tolerated by your Government in the past will not be tolerated in the future. As soon as the Committee reports back guidelines will be set for future practices in this area of great public importance. Mr Speaker, I have consciously discussed this matter with moderation. It would be simple to achieve considerable instant political mileage by dwelling on various aspects of procedures and on weaknesses in those procedures; questioning at length the principles behind the development and the perserverance with some of these procedures; colourfully highlighting instances of misuse of this accessability and of situations where it could be abused. This would be scarcely helpful to an intelligent under standing of the important issues involved, especially in public debate. It could impair the development of carefully safeguarded arrange ments which clients might prefer and benefit from and it may irresoluably prejudice academic research, conducted under proper safeguards which are acceptable to the public, and which would lead to a strengthening and a betterment of the system of social security benefits and services to the great advantage of the public. I am not recommending such things but I do not rule out their possibility either in recommendations by the Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy. Before any action was taken on any such recommendations the recommendations of the Committee would be published and any proposed procedures would be exposed to public scrutiny and public comment before they were finalised.

Furthermore I should point out I have not sought to apportion blame in any way in this matter. What has happened is the product of a very old system which ceased being relevant and appropriate to a contemporary society some considerable time ago. The system just did not evolve the way it should have but people - Ministers and public servants - were too busy with so many other immediate and very pressing issues to call the procedures into question.

To be perfectly frank, if I had not received some letters from different employees of the Department pointing out the weaknesses of this system - and they did this in response to the current hysteria being whipped up on health insurance recording procedures - I doubt that I would ever have called the procedures into question. Indeed to be even franker, until I received those letters I had not known that access to personal information on clients held by the Department was available to non-departmental sources. Until I received the lists I tabled earlier I had not known the extent of this access.

I believe I have put this matter before the House with a great deal of restraint and without any effort to introduce emotive overtones. This has not been easy because I do feel greatly distressed at the extent to which access has been available to personal records held within the Department. On the other hand, the practice can be traced back over a very great number of years as I mentioned earlier. It spans many governments and it seems to have flourished in recent years. Perhaps the practice was more tolerable two or three decades ago. It certainly is not now, and merely because this bad practice has been of such long standing, and has become so firmly embedded in the procedures of the Department, is no reason for it to continue. As I indicated, it will not, and I have taken proper steps to end it. I present the following paper:

Department of Social Security - Disclosure of Information from Department files - Ministerial statement, 21 November 1973.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) has made one of his rare confessions of being restrained. He has also confessed that he has been moderate. I would agree with both of those confessions with regard to the statement he has put before the House. It is a statement of moderation but I should like to point out a couple of instances in which I believe it was not or where the statement had included in it matters which need not have been included if the statement had been one of complete moderation. The Opposition welcomes what the Minister has said. However, at the outset, I should like to refer to what the Minister said on page 18 of his statement. The Minister stated:

The system just did not evolve the way it should have but people - Ministers and public servants - were too busy with so many other immediate and very pressing issues to call the procedures into question.

That is not true. I am not suggesting the Minister has misled the House on purpose, but the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has authorised me to say specifically that quite often he did call these procedures into question.

Mr Hayden:

– The Department advises me that the same thing was said in 1948.

Mr CHIPP:

– Unfortunately, the Government will not allow the honourable member for Mackellar to speak on this matter. So that he can justify-

Mr Wentworth:

– The Government will now; arrangements have been made.

Mr CHIPP:

– I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) for allowing my friend to speak. The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) also called these practices into question. But there is no direct reflection in this document on any previous Minister and we are thankful for that. Therefore, it is not in any way a political document.

The thing that concerns me about the statement is that running through the entire document like the thread of Ariadne is the fallibility of human beings and, possibly, the future fallibility of machines. Strangely, the Minister has raised the question of human fallibility to strengthen his argument for tightening the procedures. This is the very thing that concerns me and members of the Opposition about the Minister’s health insurance scheme. There is nobody in this House who has a higher regard for the integrity and honesty of members of the Public Service than myself. As a former Minister who was responsible for over 5,000 officers, I have nothing but admiration and praise for the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise. But the Minister for Social Security would know that, human fallibility being what it is, there is always a bad apple. Only recently, 2

Customs officers were prosecuted for being involved in drug smuggling.

No matter what sorts of precautions are taken with human beings, the temptation is there for them to divulge information and this is one of the reasons why the Opposition is deeply concerned about the data bank that is to be held in Canberra, or wherever it may be, containing the personal medical details and history of all human beings in Australia. We are concerned because of the fallibility of human beings and, indeed, the fallibility of computers about which I spoke the other day in reference to an IBM computer belonging to Trans-Australia Airlines in Melbourne which, instead of tapping out airline reservations, tapped out health prescriptions from the Department of Health.

Mr Coates:

– There is no need to repeat that misrepresentation.

Mr CHIPP:

– Is the honourable member suggesting that that was a lie?

Mr Coates:

– Misrepresentation was the word.

Mr CHIPP:

– I am grateful for the interjection because if the article in ‘Rydges’ was a lie I think the honourable member has a duty to this Parliament to disclose that lie. This statement has not been challenged by anybody on the Government side before. I will repeat it and the honourable member can and will have a duty to deny it. There were 2 computers. One was in Brisbane and one was in Melbourne. One belonged to the Department of Health and one belonged to Trans-Australia Airlines.

Mr Coates:

– A very colourful story.

Mr CHIPP:

– By some freak the TAA computer in Melbourne started tapping out health prescriptions and the Department of Health computer in Canberra started tapping out TAA airline reservations. It is a good story. If that is not true, will the Minister please tell the House about it? I think he has a duty to do that. One thing I found rather strange in the Minister’s statement was where he stated:

To be perfectly frank, if I had not received some letters from different employees of the Department pointing out the weaknesses of this system - and they did this in response to the current hysteria being whipped up on health insurance recording procedures - I doubt that I would ever have called the procedures into question.

Again it seems to me that the Minister is advancing an argument which we have been advancing. Apparently his own officers have been so concerned about human fallibility that they have rightly and properly in the past brought to his attention this matter of human fallibility. They have done it in the context of the fears expressed by honourable members on this side of the House about the disclosure of personal medical records under the health insurance scheme. I find that a rather strange thing for the Minister to bring into question. The only other 2 criticisms I have are not of the Minister’s statement but of the way in which he introduced it. In the last couple of days he has made 2 announcements. ‘Smear’ is a word I do not like using and I will not apply it here. I think he made a misdirected criticism. Firstly, he said that debt collecting agencies had been given access to departmental records. I was deeply concerned about that as was everybody else. But the Minister in his statement says:

I regard it as quite improper that debt collecting agencies such as State housing authorities, local government bodies, and power distribution authorities____

I had in mind, as did everybody else who heard the Minister and read his report, some sleazy debt collecting agency which uses standover tactics being given access to departmental records. I am not suggesting that the Minister has tried to smear anybody on this, but I think his words both then and in his statement were very ill-chosen. They have been misinterpreted in a very wide section of the community. Unconsciously, I think he has placed a reflection upon the officers of his Department because everybody who read the report was appalled to think that any officers of the Department of Social Services, as it then was, would have given records to a sleazy debt collecting agency.

The other thing to which I object is the reference to Professor Pollard. It is most unfortunate that the Minister has taken 4 pages of his statement in criticising Professor Pollard, a most distinguished man, a man who has tried to do some real research in this area in which the Minister is interested. Simply because the professor belongs to other organisations such as the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and the Economic Advisory Council of the Australian Medical Association the Minister is virtually calling him a hypocrite. It is also very unfortunate that he has brought into question the fact that Professor Pollard is a member of the Longueville Presbyterian Church. The relevance of that completely escapes me.

In conclusion I commend the Minister for referring the matter to the Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy. He has made some point of this, but I want to emphasise it. The fact that certain agencies - State government agencies and local government agencies - can obtain information about pensioners, for example, is often to the pensioner’s advantage. In the case of some authorities - housing commissions, for example - if substantiation of the fact that a -person is a pensioner can be made, that person receives special dispensation from that authority. I know that it would not be the Minister’s wish to close off additional benefits that might be given to pensioners and people in the low income groups by obsessive secrecy in what he finally implements. I know that that is in the Minister’s mind. But I did want to point out that the disclosure of this information, provided that it is under proper and adequate supervision - I agree with the Minister here, I agree with the actions he has taken - quite often can act to the benefit of the underprivileged groups in the community.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MacKellar

– I agree that the statement that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) has put before us is in most respects moderate and restrained. To that extent I think that it is a withdrawal from the somewhat extravagant statements which he put out earlier. I can only hope that the damage which, perhaps unconsciously, he has done by those previous extravagant statements will to some extent be undone by this one. There are one or two points I should remark upon besides those made by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) who preceded me. I refer particularly to the aside of the Minister, which was not contained in his roneoed speech, when he referred to the ‘evil practices’ of the past Government. This was not only unfair but also out of line with what the Minister had said. Nothing has been done in the past that is not in conformity with the practices inherited from a previous Labor government and from previous governments before that.

As the Minister has pointed out, it is true that there have been changes in services. I think that he was fair in that regard. It is perhaps extraordinary how little complaint has been made in the past - certainly very little justified complaint. In the whole of my 4i years as Minister for Social Services I cannot remember any complaint being voiced in this House on this matter. It is important to remember that by far the greater part of the giving of information by the Department is either for the benefit of the pensioner or with the pensioner’s explicit or implied consent. I deal now with that second point of which honourable members will all be aware. Probably hundreds of times in a year every one of us gets a request to look at the circumstances of some pensioner in our electorate. There is an implied consent from that pensioner that his affairs should be known to the honourable member who is trying to help him. Although the files of pensioners are not usually made available there have been occasions when a complaint has been made that a Minister - I, and I think other Ministers, have done this - has discussed the file with the member of Parliament who has brought this matter before his attention and who is acting on ‘behalf of the pensioner. I know that I have treated honourable members on both sides of the House in exactly the same way in this regard. I do not recall an instance where, after discussion with the honourable member concerned and the adjustment of what had to be adjusted, there has ever been a matter which has had to be raised subsequently in the House while I was Minister.

The other point is that most of the disclosures are for the benefit of the pensioner. This is necessary when he is a claimant for some kind of concession available to pensioners from a State authority, a local government authority, a charitable authority or, indeed, from one of the Commonwealth departments. In these cases a file is not made available in total or anything like that. The impression given by the Minister’s previous statements was quite false in this regard. Only information which is necessary for the settlement of the pensioner’s claims is given. They may be just claims and it is important for the pensioner that they should be settled with the least possible delay. I know that some of these practices grew up in the days before there was what is known as a pensioner medical service card used as a method of identification. In those days a pensioner’s form was ‘available only to those pensioners who had their pensions paid through post offices and not through banks. They, of course, are by no means the whole body of pensioners. But in some cases there was not a ready means of identification. Even today many pensioners are not entitled to PMS cards.

For all these reasons I think it was unfortunate that the Minister should refer, as he did, to debt collecting agencies using the Department’s files because the bodies to which he referred, such as the housing commissions, were bodies whose main reason, not sole reason, for getting information was to do something for the benefit of the pensioner. It was necessary for them to verify not details about the pensioner in almost all cases, but the fact that he was a pensioner. I shall not go into the details of this. I promised the Minister that I would speak for only a few minutes and I will keep ito that promise. But I regretted what the Minister said about Professor Pollard. If my memory is correct I think that, in principle, the disclosure to Professor Pollard was authorised while I was Minister for Social Services. The actual disclosure was done while the present Minister was in office, so I suppose that it is reasonable for both of us to bear the responsibility.

Mr Hayden:

– It was without my knowledge at any stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– That may well be, but I would say that in this case nothing wrong was done. Old files were involved on which there was nothing that could have been of significance. The extracts were for statistical purposes only. I do not blame the Minister for what he did. Although I cannot recall it, I believe that permission in principle was given during the time I was Minister and I have nothing to retract from that at all. I do not blame the Minister for what was done. It may be necessary for academic reasons - ‘for such things as, for example, Professor Henderson’s inquiry on poverty, which was instituted by the previous Government when I was Minister, or the inquiry on repatriation by Mr Justice Toose, or something like that - for some academic or judicial authority to get statistical information, not personal information, from files. But in general the files are not let out of the possession of the Department. In this case, as I have said, although I do not blame the Minister for what was done I think it was perhaps a little irregular for Professor ‘Pollard to have access to the files, although no harm was done. It is purely whipping up hysteria - that is the Minister’s phrase - to consider that any harm was done.

I come now to the 2 main points I want to emphasise. ‘Firstly, it is possible that there can be human error in such cases. No department is invulnerable to misbehaviour by its officers. The Minister cited a case - I think it was before my time as Minister - of a police officer who got information from the Department and used it for personal purposes to trace the address of his erring wife. That was a misuse of departmental information. It happened not through an officer of the Department of Social Services but through an officer of a police department. It was misconduct. It was misconduct, but there is no system in which misconduct of that character is impossible. This has become much more important because of the use of computers and the greater availability of accessibility of information. It is true that a computer can go wrong, but a computer can also be subjected to misuse by misconduct or by human error. Because of the greater volume of information now being collated it is important that we should have some control over the new facilities. Therefore I think the Minister is right in doing the same thing as the New South Wales Government has recently announced that it will do, that is, to have an inquiry into the better protection of privacy. The Minister’s guidelines as set out on page 16 of the reneoed statement may prove impractical. The information will be restricted to cases.

  1. where there is explicit authorisation or verifiable authorisation by the client concerned, or
  2. in extreme cases where there exist grave reasons of public interest.

How are we to deal with inquiries by members about pensioners in their constituencies? Many of these inquiries are made by telephone and it is important for the pensioner concerned that they be resolved with the least possible delay. Second, how are we to deal with the position of voluntary organisations which need information about whether an applicant for relief from them is in point of fact a pensioner? How are we to deal with those inquiries that must be made by State welfare organisations if they are to give relief? Those organisations want to know the facts quickly. An inquiry may come in on Wednesday night and it is desired to extend relief to the person concerned on Wednesday night or Thursday morning. There is not sufficient time to go through all the departmental procedure.

Though the Minister’s guidelines are well meant, and I can understand the motive behind them, I am afraid that in practice they will act to the prejudice of a great number of pensioners and will make conditions worse for the pensioners. They will impede the operations of State welfare departments. They may well make very difficult the position of those excellent organisations like the Red Cross or St Vincent de Paul or other relief organisations that exist and require quick knowledge - not details - of whether or not a person is a pensioner before they are able to give assistance or assess the relief that should be given.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I claim to be mispresented insofar as by imputation

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! You are not speaking to the motion?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– If I may, I prefer to do so. I commend the Minister for the moderation of this statement. I was concerned at an earlier statement he made in this House in reply to questions. I believe that at no stage while he has been Minister, or at any other stage, has the information divulged by the Minister for Social Services, as he was, or by the present Minister for Social Security, reacted against the pensioner. It is my belief that over the course of the years it has been necessary for some divulgence of information to be part and parcel of the holding of information within a department such as the Department of Social Security. Obviously there is a feeling on the part of those who have heard the statement by the Minister that perhaps this has been to the detriment of those concerned. It should be said on the other hand that by far the major usage of this information has been for the benefit of the pensioner.

When I was Minister for Social Services on a number of occasions I was approached for confidential information from files. I made it the practice that files should never be seen other than by officers of the Department and, if information were to be made available, it should be statistical information of a general nature rather than of a personal nature. I do not believe that information of that character that is divulged reacts other than to the advantage of the individual. I am concerned that if there is to be any undue restraint on the ability of the Department specified or any other Commonwealth Department to exchange information it should not be in such a way as either to frustrate the operations of the Government or to deny pensioners concessions that are available to them through some other government agency, be it at local government or State government level, when those concessions can be made only if the other agency knows that the person concerned is a pensioner.

I should hope that people who are pensioners do not feel that the results of the steps taken by the present Minister for Social Security will react to their disadvantage. I am sure that that is not his intention. I hope the degree to which there have been headlines in various newspapers around Australia that have suggested that information has been divulged detrimental to personal privacy, and consequently in some way reacting against those persons, will not make people feel that the pension system of the Department of Social Services is an agency of which they need be afraid henceforth. There have been real problems in the community in getting people to take up pensions. Unfortunately there are still some people who feel that there is a measure of loss of pride involved in receiving a pension from the Government. I believe this not to be so. I hope that as a result of the action taken by the Minister people who hold some fears about disclosure of personal information, particularly elderly citizens who, for reasons of pride or for other reasons, have been hesitant to receive this benefit, do not feel hesitant to receive this benefit, do not feel inhibited in making the disclosures necessary to ensure their entitlement. I am apprehensive that this could be the result of the Minister’s statement. I believe it is necessary that information be exchangeable between officers of various government departments and that there must be the strictest possible restraint placed on the use to which the information can be put.

I trust that the inquiry to which the Minister referred in his statement and which was initiated by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) will not result in undue restraint on the use of information. I trust that whatever procedures are ultimately adopted will be promulgated in this House and that it will be possible for honourable members to discuss the information and the manner of its exchange and application as well as to ensure that the fears expressed by honourable members on this side of the House are not realised. For my part I believe it is necessary that there be complete freedom of belief on the part of an indivdual that information disclosed to the Department will be [protected to the maximum degree, but I believe equally that divulgence of that information should not preclude the Department from exchanging the information with other agencies or individuals where the exchange can be to the benefit of the applicant.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3601

HONEY EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on honey exports to provide necessary additional finance for the operations of the Australian Honey Board. The Australian Honey Board was established under the Honey Industry Act 1962 for the general purposes of regulating the export of honey and engaging in promotional activities on the domestic and overseas markets. The Board’s operations are presently financed by levies imposed on domestic sales of honey and on honey used in the production of other goods. Exports of honey which normally account for some 40 per cent of Australian production were exempted from levy when the legislation was introduced in 1962 because of the very depressed state of the export market at that time.

Since 1962 the Board’s operational costs and requirements for promotional funds have risen along with the general cost increases that have occurred. Periodic increases in the rate of levy have been made to meet this situation, but there is an increasing reluctance on the part of the industry to increase the present levy on domestic honey sales. In March 1973 the Board felt it was appropriate in light of the prevailing bouyant market conditions that the export sector should contribute to financing the Board’s operations. It recommended that a charge be imposed on honey exports at a maximum rate of1c per kg and that the operative rate should be a minimum of 0.3c per kg.

Following its recommendation the Board sought the endorsement of the main honey industry organisations which indicated their general support. The matter was subsequently discussed at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council in August last and there was general acceptance of the need for a charge on the export of honey. The Bill gives effect to the industry proposal. It provides for an initial operative rate of charge of 0.3c per kg which may be varied by regulation, on the recommendation of the Australian Honey Board, to any level within a maximum rate of lc per kg. The Government believes that the Honey Board must receive greater financial support if it is to function properly in the future and as there has been a very buoyant market over the last 2 years, in principle, the export trade should now make a contribution to financing the Board’s operations. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion of Mr Ian Robinson) adjourned.

page 3602

HONEY EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Honey Export Charge Bill 1973, is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the export charge imposed by the Honey Export Charge Bill 1973. The Bill provides for the charge to be payable by the exporter of the honey within 28 days after the end of the month in which the honey is exported. The remaining provisions of the Bill are principally related to the administrative procedures necessary to collect the charge. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Robinson) adjourned.

page 3602

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend th§ Honey Industry Act 1962-1972 to provide that amounts equivalent to the amounts of charge received under the Honey Export Charge Collection Bill 1973 shall be paid to the Australian Honey Board out of Consolidated Revenue. This amendment is conse quential to the Honey Export Charge Bill 1973, the purpose of which is to provide additional revenue for the Australian Honey Board. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Robinson) adjourned.

page 3602

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $9m in 1973-74 for a growth centre at AlburyWodonga. In the Budget, the Government announced its intention to allocate $33m for the new cities program. The remaining $24m will be directed to other growth centres and related projects.

On 23 October 1973 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria signed an Agreement on the development structure to be established for the Albury-Wodonga growth centre and the legal framework within which this will operate. This Bill is designed to provide financial assistance to these States on the basis of that Agreement. The moneys appropriated by this Bill will be applied in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Albury-Wodonga Development Bill 1973 and the Albury-Wodonga Area Development Agreement which I introduced into the House yesterday.

As the title of this Bill makes clear, its purpose is to provide financial assistance to New South Wales and Victoria in the current financial year for purposes connected with the development of Albury-Wodonga. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that when a State has incurred expenditure this financial year in accordance with an approved program, it is then entitled to financial assistance. Clause 8 of the Bill qualifies Clause 4 by providing that the States’ entitlements to financial assistance is subject to conditions set out in the Bill and to such other conditions as are agreed between the 3 Governments.

Clause 10 provides for financial assistance in respect of land for urban use by way of loans. Sub-clause (2) provides for interest to be at the long-term bond rate or at such other rate as the Treasurer, with the concurrence of the Minister, determines. This subclause therefore allows for some flexibility in financial arrangements.

Each advance is repayable over 30 years by 60 half-yearly payments subject to sub-clause (3) of clause 10. Sub-clause (3) provides for a deferment period for the commencement of repayments of principal and payments of Interest. This deferment period is not to exceed 10 years. During this time, the interest is to compound half-yearly. When a deferment is granted, repayments will still be completed 30 years after the first advance.

Under clause 11, financial assistance for the acquisition of land for buffer zones, conservation areas and major recreation space can be made by way of non-repayable, noninterest bearing grants. This is subject to a matching grant by the State of such proportion as the Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasurer, determines.

Honourable members will recall that the Albury.Wodonga Development Bill, which I have already introduced into the House, has an attachment - the Albury-Wodonga Development Agreement. Part III of this Agreement sets out the basic financial arragements for the development of the growth complex. Clause 14 of this present Bill requires a copy of every future amending agreement to be tabled in the House.

I need not delay honourable members any further with the provisions of this Bill as my second reading speech on the AlburyWodonga Development Bill yesterday fully covered the various aspects of this important growth centre project. I refer honourable members to the text of that speech and the explanatory memorandum of the Agreement which accompanied the Bill. I commend the Albury-Wodonga Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1973 to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Robinson) adjourned.

page 3603

GROWTH CENTRES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate S24m in 1973-74 for the growth centres program announced in the Budget. The $24m is the balance of the appropriation for that program after subtracting the $9m approved for expenditure in Albury-Wodonga. This Bill is basically concerned with financial conditions. Funds will generally be made available to the States upon agreement to the terms of finance, and to conditions relating to development corporations, where appropriate, and the introduction of legislation permitting a system of land acquisition at fair prices. The Bill only sets out conditions relating to the terms of finance. Clause 9 (1) provides that other conditions may be agreed between the Australian and State governments. These other conditions will be set out in the financial agreementsClause 15 of the Bill requires these agreements to be tabled.

Many of the detailed provisions in this Bill are the same as provisions for the Land Commissions (Financial Assistance) Bill which is on the notice paper, and I shall speak on it later today in some detail. However, for the purposes of this Bill, I will outline some of the more important provisions. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for approved programs of urban and regional development which include land acquisition, development, other works, and studies. Sub-clause (3) requires that where land is to be acquired it should be identified as intended for urban use, or otherwise. This is because the terms of finance for these 2 categories are different. Clause 5 is the operative section. When a State has incurred expenditure this financial year in accordance with an approved program it is then entitled to financial assistance. Clause 9 qualifies clause 5 by providing that a State’s entitlement to financial assistance is subject to conditions set out in the Bill and also to such other conditions as may be agreed upon between the Australian and State governments. Clause 10 provides that, in respect of land for urban use, financial assistance will be through loans. Under clause 11, financial assistance for the acquisition of land for buffer zones, conservation areas and major recreation space can be made by way of non-repayable grants. This is subject to a matching grant by the States.

Mr Speaker, I shall deal with the more detailed arrangements for this assistance in introducing the next Bill which is concerned with financial assistance for land commissions. In the schedule attached to this Bill is a list of the areas covered by the Bill. There are 3 areas in New South Wales: BathurstOrange, Holsworthy-Campbelltown and Gosford-Wyong. The Cities Commission has been working closely with the New South Wales authorities in their efforts in Bathurst-Orange. In Holsworthy-Campbelltown the Cities Commission has been conducting detailed investigations into the problems of unexploded munitions and now believes that these problems can be solved at reasonable cost with the aid of sophisticated techniques already in use in many European countries. Land to be publicly acquired with funds allocated for 1973-74 has already been defined. We are now considering proposals for the management of the first pilot stage of development in the Holsworthy area. In Gosford-Wyong, the Commission is conducting studies into land to be acquired in 1973-74.

In Victoria 2 areas come into this Bill. In Geelong, we are commissioning studies for the development of a planning strategy. In Melbourne’s south-east sector a task force has begun work, in co-operation with the appropriate State authorities, to define the land to be acquired with Federal finance in 1973-74. The land to be acquired in Melbourne’s south-east sector is not for development, but to protect areas from development. The need for recreation land near Melbourne is particularly important. Moreover, the preservation of the Mornington Peninsula and the Dandenongs is a matter of some urgency. We are providing at least $3m in grant money this financial year for this task. We want to protect this area in co-operation with the Victorian State authorities. Together we can prevent this valuable area from being spoiled by over-development.

Following discussions with Queensland officials, the Cities Commission has been able to draw up study programs in the Moreton, Townsville and Fitzroy regions. The South Australian Government has pushed ahead with legislation and planning for Monarto. We have reached agreement with the South Australian Government on major policy issues. Final negotiations are under way between the Australian and Western Australian governments on policies to be adopted in the Salvado growth centre. The land for which Federal assistance has been allocated has been defined. In addition, a major study of port location and water supply in the Salvado region has been prepared.

Finally, good progress has been made in discussions between the Tasmanian authorities and the Cities Commission into future proposals for studies and land acquisition in Tasmania. We are examining particularly the Tamar region. Naturally, all these studies and negotiations on future land acquisition are being carried out in close co-operation with the appropriate State authorities. Apart from Canberra, this is the first time in the history of our nation that the Australian Government has made direct budgetary appropriations for a new city development. After studies by the Cities Commission, we have selected and are promoting a certain number of growth centres. We have committed $24m in this first year to our growth centres program. I stress again that that amount does not include our commitment to the development of Albury-Wodonga. Our growth centres program is only one part of our overall urban and regional development strategy but it is an essential part. The growth centres referred to in the Bill, and future growth centres, will help stabilise population pressure on existing cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne. At the same time, growth centres will provide alternative living areas for future generations of Australians. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Robinson) adjourned.

page 3604

LAND COMMISSIONS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $30m in 1973-74 for the Land Commissions program as allocated in the Budget. The rapidly rising price of land in our capital cities is something which disturbs this Government and distresses the young people saving for a home. Our policies on land form part of our urban policies. No-one can deny the need to change the haphazard system of urban development which has been carried out over the past 23 years. Urban development needs to be planned so that it does not take place simply as the consequence of .pressure by major landholders for rezoning. Australia’s cities have grown tremendously in the past 20 years. Escalating land prices, inadequate urban services and transport facilities, poor urban design and under-privileged communities have all been the products of urban development of the post-war years. The Australian people face major expenditures to overcome the backlog in urban services in our major cities. In short, too often the product is poor, the price is too high and the bills have not been met.

Let me give some figures with regard to Sydney in the period September 1970 to March 1973. The increase of the consumer price index in all groups was 18.2 per cent. Average weekly earnings rose 29.5 per cent. The wholesale price of building materials for houses rose 21.4 per cent. However, the minimum price for home sites in urban fringe areas in Sydney rose an astounding 157 per cent. What is happening in Sydney today and what will happen there in the remainder of this year is what will happen next year in Melbourne and in other capital cities. It is occurring already in the south eastern corridor of Melbourne. This is a national disgrace. It points to the need for action by the State governments as well as by the Australian Government. Might I add that the State governments have had the power in the past to carry out this action, if financial arrangements had been made. The first requirement was for the States to have the will to do this. The second need was for them to enter into financial arrangements wim the Federal Government. The State governments in the past did not act- in this direction; nor did the Federal Government. That is why we face this crisis situation now.

Yet, throughout the whole development process of the last 2 decades, a number of individuals have amassed large fortunes from increases in the value of land. The investment of public funds in services and facilities such as highways, sewers, schools and hospitals increases the value of land, but the people as a whole recover little or none of the increases. Rezoning can, overnight, cause large increases in the value of land owned by those whose property lies within the path of urban development. Sometimes individual owners and, of course, speculators who are sitting on large tracts of land, withhold their land from the market in the hope of further land price increases. The result is many families today are unable to afford a house on their own block of land.

One of the chief characteristics of the growth of our cities is that often the sequence of development is private initiative for profit followed by a harried and strained public investment in basic infrastructure. So, there is a great need for governments to be able to co-ordinate the provision of services to developing areas. In order to get an efficient co-ordination and provision of services, governments ought to be able to identify specific areas for development. These areas must then be acquired at prices which have not been forced up by the announcement of intended urban development. The present planning system is a blueprint for speculators. This is one major reason why we must change the rules of the game. Public acquisition defeats speculators who withhold large parcels of land from the market. Land Commissions and the legislation to enable acquisition at fair prices which we are encouraging the States to implement are essential if better co-ordination and better planning are to be achieved. Ultimately, they are the means by which we will enable young people to enter the land market at a cheaper price. Let there be no mistake about this: The present Australian Government believes that excessive profits have been made in land speculation and this should not continue. We need the co-operation of the States to stop this. If there is co-operation between the Australian Government and the State governments, this state of affairs can be stopped. Honourable members should have no doubt about that.

There are three major objectives underlying the operations of the Land Commission structures. Firstly, we want to allow areas to be comprehensively planned and developed; secondly, we want to make land available at fair prices; thirdly, we want to retain, for the benefit of the whole community, some of the increase in value which results from the process of urban development. This Government believes that a great majority of Australians accept and welcome these objectives. Therefore, the Australian Government has encouraged the States to set up Land Commissions or to reorganise their existing structures so that these objectives can be achieved.

The financial assistance offered to the States is subject to two main types of condition. The first type deals with the usual range of conditions on terms of finance. I will deal with these more fully in a moment when I am considering specific parts of the Bill. The second main type might broadly be called performance conditions.

There are two major performance conditions: Firstly, each State should carry out its land acquisition programme through an organisation structure agreeable to the Australian Government; and secondly, the State should implement legislation to acquire the land at prices unaffected by announcements of intended urban development.

Honourable members should know that the aim is not to freeze land prices. I hope that that really sinks into the minds of honourable members opposite. I repeat for their benefit those words: Honourable members should know that the aim is not to freeze land prices. Nor is the aim to reduce the capital value of the asset. Rather, the aim is to ensure that any inflation caused by the announcement of any government is not borne by the purchasers. I hope that this is perfectly clear to honourable members. There has been too much hysteria on the question of the stabilisation of land prices. We are not freezing land. We are trying to stabilise the price of land. There have also been some misunderstandings in regard to the question of land tenure. Let me make clear the process of urban development as we envisage it. Firstly, there is a decision by governments that a city will expand in a certain area. Secondly, and as soon as possible, there is an announcement that the price paid for land acquired in the general will set aside increases deriving solely from the Government decision. Thirdly, after studies have been carried out with full public knowledge and involvement, a decision is made on the exact area to be zoned urban. Fourthly, the land commission authority acquires that part of the new urban area where it is to supervise development. Fifthly, the area is physically developed. This operation would usually be undertaken by developers in accordance with reasonable conditions agreed upon with the Government. Sixthly, the land is disposed of to individuals, groups, companies and government authorities - for houses, flats, factories, shops, offices, schools, parks, roads and all the things which go to make up an attractive and complete community. I think we can draw on the experience of the development of new suburbs in Canberra.

This is the end of the first phase of urban development. The question then to be answered is what form of tenure should be adopted for this disposal. There have been discussions with the States on this question and the Government is awaiting the report of the royal commission inquiry into land tenures. The Government is not dogmatic on this question of residential land tenure. I stress that I believe that all State governments understand this and that detailed questions of land tenure are not a barrier to commencing the process of land acquisition and development I have just described.

I turn now to the detailed provisions of this Bill. The Bill provides in clause 4 for the Minister to approve programs of land acquisition and, in consultation with the Treasurer, to agree upon the amount and terms of financial assistance to be provided to carry out the program of land acquisition. In each case, negotiations will be with the appropriate Minister of the State defined in clause 3. This is a general Bill which allows for flexibility in the determination of programs of land acquisition and setting the terms of finance. Clause 15 of the Bill provides for the financial agreements to be tabled. Dealing first with the programs of land acquisition, clause 4 provides that the programs are for purposes connected with urban expansion. Clause 3 defines urban expansion to include redevelopment, and setting aside land in or near urban areas for public recreation purposes or for conservation. Subclause (1) of clause 4 requires that the programs be carried out by an approved authority. Clause 3 defines an approved authority as either the land commission of a particular State or an authority of that State approved by the Minister with the concurrence of the Treasurer. Under sub-clause (2) of clause 4, the land to be acquired will be specified as intended either for urban use or alternatively, for public recreation space, for buffer zones or for conservation areas.

These latter areas of land will be large tracts returning relatively little income.

Clause 11 provides that in these cases Australian Government assistance will be nonrepayable grants subject to a matching grant provision. Where land is intended for urban use, and this includes not only land for houses, offices and factories, but also land for schools, community facilities, transportation routes and urban parks, Australian Goverment assistance will be in the form of interest bearing loans. Clause 10 provides for these loans to be repayable over 30 years. Interest is to be payable half-yearly on the outstanding balance. The interest rate is to be the long-term bond rate or such lower rate as the

Treasurer with my concurrence determines. I will return to the question of interest rates in a moment. Sub-clause (3) of clause 10 provides for a period of deferment of up to 10 years. This will be agreed with the State before payments in respect of a particular program commence. The deferment period is a period during which there are no repayments of principal or payments of interest. The outstanding principal will compound on half-yearly rests during the deferment period. After the deferment period, the principal and accrued interest are treated as a principal sum which is then repaid with interest over the balance of 30 years. The deferment period is offered so that States accepting financial assistance can ensure that the process of development of the land generates funds to service loan requirements.

There will be a period after acquisition when the land is not returning any income to the approved authority which carried out the acquisition. The deferment period will allow the States to plan the cash flow for each project so that funds are available to service borrowings as required. The Australian Government has also decided that there will be a review of interest rates. I will propose to the States that the review should be carried out within 5 years and, in any event, before the end of the deferment period. The review will take into account the cash flows for each project or group of projects so that they can be self-financing as far as possible. The flexibility in the terms of finance allowed by the Bill will permit the Australian Government to tailor a program of urban development to suit conditions in each State and region.

In describing the type of land involved in this program, I have referred to some of the terms and conditions under which financial assistance will be provided. As I said earlier, there are two types of conditions involved. There are the performance conditions relating to the operation of land commission structures and land price stabilisation legislation. There are also the conditions as to interest, terms and repayments and so forth which are set out in the Bill. The Bill contains other machinery conditions. There are provisions in clauses 6, 8 and 13 requiring the supply of information and in clause 14 there is a provision that the Australian Government’s consent is to be given to any major change of land use. The clause in the Bill which connects the two types of conditions is clause 9. That clause provides that advances are to be subject to conditions set out in the Bill and to such other conditions as the Treasurer and I determine. Through that clause, the conditions relating to land commission structures and land price stabilisation legislation will be made effective.

This Bill provides for $30m to be spent this financial year under our land commissions program. It is a first step in a continuing involvement by the Australian Government in order to provide more attractive and better planned communities. Land commissions are one part of an interconnected package of programs in urban and regional development. This Government recognises that the various investments which the Australian Government has made in the past coupled with the initiatives we are now taking are all inter-connected. These investments range over the whole field - land, housing, roads, sewerage, transport. These investments must increasingly be seen as an inter-connected parcel of policies, not as isolated programs. The Australian Government seeks the co-operation of the States to work as a partnership in this venture. Already the South Australian Government has established a Land Commission. Western Australia has introduced a Bill to establish a Land Commission. I have ‘been engaged in detailed discussions with the Victorian Minister for Local Government for some months. Discussions are continuing with Ministers and officials in other States, particularly Queensland. We seek the co-operation of the States.

Together the Australian and State governments can achieve a more efficient allocation of resources. Together the Australian and State governments can achieve a more equitable form of urban development. Together the Australian and State governments can achieve what all Australians would want them to achieve - to give Australian families access to land and housing at fair prices. There are no immediate solutions to our urban problems. There are no ‘instant coffee’ solutions to the land crisis. But the .Land Commissions are a beginning. They are an alternative. They provide an alternative method which will enable Australians to receive the benefits of more efficient and more equitable urban development. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Fairbairn) adjourned.

ENGINEERING SERVICES, MALAK AND KARAMA NEIGHBOURHOODS, darwin

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Minister for Works · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1972, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of engineering services, Malak and Karama neighbourhoods, Sanderson District - Darwin, Northern Territory.

The proposal involves the provision of roads and engineering services to 1933 residential and 44 special sites, including the necessary supply of water, sewerage and electrical services to the neighbourhoods. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $ 11.6m.

The Committee concluded there was a need for the works, that it was appropriate to continue the development of the Sanderson District in accordance with the town plan and the general principles of town planning and engineering standards adopted for previous district development, and that the construction of the work should proceed. The Committee also noted a review of housing designs and standards under way in Darwin and requested that a group of houses be referred for public inquiry by the Committee. Arrangements are in hand for a group of 40 houses developed to the new designs and standards to be referred to the Committee for examination and report early in 1974. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3608

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONALTERATION(MODE

OF altering THE constitution) bill 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November (vide page 3400), on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– This is the sixth of a series of referendum Bills, with one more to come. It is another Bill in a long and continuing series to alter the Constitution by fraud and by deceit, and to do so without adequate thought and without adequate parliamentary discussion. Let us look first of all at clause 2 (c) of the Bill which proposes to alter section 128 of the Constitution to allow qualified electors in the Territories to vote. The words ‘the Territories refer to electors in the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, and the Northern Territory. There are 264,000 citizens in these territories, of which 130,700 are eligible to vote. The Opposition supports this proposal for the good and sufficient reason that all Australian citizens qualified under the laws of this country should be able to do so. I mention in passing that the 130,700 Territory votes will not be counted in the votes of the States in order to determine whether in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law. They will apply only to the total Australian vote.

There is a second proposal in the Bill in clause 2 (b). It proposes that the following words in section 128 of the Constitution shall be omitted:

But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half of the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

These words have been overcome by events and are now superfluous. The Opposition pointed out that similar requirements in other referendum Bills should have been deleted. The Opposition is glad that the Government has accepted its advice - however grudging and tardy acceptance might have been.

There can be little doubt that the Australian Constitution has proved difficult to amend. There have been 26 proposals for amendment since 1901, and only five have been passed. That is exactly how it should be, because sovereignty, or quasi-sovereignty, resides with the qualified electors of this country. It is for them to decide, subject to certain constitutional safeguards, whether they want any change. They have a right, even an obligation, to move with care because they are the people who must bear the burden of irresponsible government - government of the kind they are compelled to endure stoically today.

The real problem we face is associated with the third proposal in clause 2 (c) of the Bill. The relevant part of the Constitution to which clause 2 (c) relates provides that:

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

Clause 2 (c) of the Bill proposes that the words in a majority of the States’ be omitted and that the words ‘in not less than one-half of the States’ be substituted. The Constitution would then read:

And if in not less than one-half of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

The effect of such a proposed change would be that instead of the constitutional requirement that, before a referendum can be successful a majority of the electors in a majority of the States must vote in favour of the proposal - that is, that there must be a majority of electors in four out of the six States and also a majority of all electors - in its place there would be a requirement that there must be a majority of electors in only 3 States out of six and a majority of all electors before the proposed law can be presented to the Governor-General for assent.

The requirement that there must be a majority of electors in a majority of the States was inserted in the Constitution to preserve the federal system of government - that is, the system of the Commonwealth and the 6 States - and to ensure maturity of thought in the consideration and settlement of the proposals relating to organic changes of the Constitution. These constitutional requirements both safeguard the Constitution itself and were designed to ensure that proper and mature consideration is given to the proposed changes and their effect on the people of this country. We reject this proposal and will move for the deletion of clause 2 (c) from the Bill.

Let me argue somewhat more persuasively and with greater authority about the effect of this proposed change. I am indebted to Quick and Gamut’s learned and elegant ‘Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth’ for most of the ideas relating to amendments to the Constitution by plebiscite or referendum. As a preface I want to state the Liberal view relating to written federal constitutions and proposals for their alteration.

A constitution may be compared to a living organism. It is not in the nature of a living organism to remain monotonously the same from year to year and from age to age. As with individual units, so with nations, change is one of the laws of life. The constitution of a nation is the outward and visible manifestation of its national life, to the pulsations of which it necessarily responds. The energy within any healthy organic structure must find vent in change. Change assumes various external forms. The power in a progressive community is never quiescent or stationary.

The safeguards that are contained in our Constitution have been provided not in order to prevent or indefinitely resist change in any direction but in order to prevent change being made in haste or by stealth, to encourage public discussion and to delay change until there is strong evidence that it is desirable, irresistible and inevitable.

A constitution is, after all, a charter of government. It is a deed of trust containing covenants between the sovereign community - that is, the people themselves - and its individual units. Those covenants should not be lightly or inconsiderately altered. At the same time a constitution which did not contain provision for its amendment with the development, growth and expansion of the community which it is intended to govern would be a most inadequate and imperfect deed of partnership. It would be doomed to collapse ignominiously and without hope of reconstruction. It would be bound to break beneath the pressure of national forces which it could not control or resist.

I believe that those 2 principles are incontrovertible. At the same time, the tendency to change must be scrutinised to ascertain whether it is proceeding in a safe direction and, if possible, to guide the tendency in that direction. The principal element in the process of a submission of proposals to the electors by way of a referendum is this: The process is a concrete illustration of the political expedient formerly known as the plebiscite and now better known as the referendum. It is an undoubted recognition that the qualified electors are the custodians of the delegated sovereignty of the Commonwealth. The qualified electors represent the people of the Commonwealth as a quasi-sovereign State in quasisovereign organisation. The requirement of the approval of a majority of the electors and a majority of the States is the method imposed by the Constitution for ascertaining the will of the people of the Federal Commonwealth. If a majority of the States had been ignored the federal element in the structure of the Commonwealth would have been impaired and whittled away.

But that does not end the matter. The Constitution, as I have said, is a living organism and we in this House must move with the times. The time may come when the national element - the people - may become so strong as to disregard and overshadow the federal element - the States. An amendment of the Constitution may then be projected and carried abolishing the necessity of the second majority.

When that is done the Commonwealth will probably cease to be a federation and will be converted into a state that is national in form and structure and national in organisation. The Constitution itself enables such a change to be made if the sovereign qualified voters, in their wisdom, consider that such a change is desirable and that the plebiscite is carried out in accordance with the Constitution and procedures of this Parliament. I do not believe that the Australian people want changes of the kind proposed in clause 2 (c) of this Bill.

I return to the long title to the Bill. It states that it is a Bill for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow electors in Territories, as well as electors in the States, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution. The words ‘to facilitate alterations to the Constitution’ are a false description of the relevant part of the Bill and must be considered against the background that the long title will be the actual question submitted to qualified electors at the referendum. It is the long title to the Bill that they will read on their ballot paper. Consequently, if it is to be honest, it should accurately reflect the substance of the Bill. Clause 2 (c) is an attempt to whittle away the federal system and the powers of the States; to take away power from the sovereign people of this country; to do so without adequate consideration of the meaning of the words and the consequences of the proposed change; to do so in such a way as to prevent proper public discussion; to do so by stealth; and to prevent the referendum Bill from truly reflecting the will of the Australian people. Accordingly, we will move to amend the preamble in a way that will be made known when the Bill is being discussed at the Committee stage.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– Over the years, the demands of the Australian people to update their ageing Constitution have been frustrated by the over-rigid requirements which must be met before change can occur. Of 26 proposed amendments put .to the people since Federation only five have met these requirements. Those passed related to Senate elections - submitted in 1906; State debtssubmitted in 1910; again State debts - submitted in 1928; social services - submitted in 1947; and the more recent one concerning the counting of Aborigines in reckoning our population, which was submitted to the people in 1967.

We believe that .the existing provisions relating to the passage of a referendum, which require a majority of the electors voting in 4 of the 6 States, as well as an overall majority of the total voters of Australia, are too rigid - more rigid, indeed, .than could ever have been contemplated by the founding fathers. However, these provisions can clearly lead to anomalous results. It is possible, for example, for a referendum to be supported by a twothirds majority of the entire Australian electorate - a cleaT mandate - and yet fail to be passed because of the geographical distribution of these electors over this great continent. This proposed amendment, if approved by the people at the referendum, will mean that future amendments to the Constitution will require the approval of the majority of the voters in only 3 of the 6 States, in addition to the existing requirement of approval by a majority of the voters of Australia as a whole. The practical effect of this proposed change will be to bring the requirements closer to a simple majority than the present requirement, which in effect is a two-thirds majority of the States.

This is not a radical change. It will not of itself usher in a new era of easy altreation to the Constitution. In fact, had these provisions applied since federation only 2 additional referendums would have been carried. They are the organised marketing of primary products and the industrial employment referendums of 1946. These received an overall vote of 50.57 per cent and 50.3 per cent respectively but were supported in 3 States only, namely, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. On only one occasion has a proposed amendment been approved by more than 50 per cent of the Australian electorate as a whole but carried in less than 3 States. That was in 1937 when the aviation referendum was not passed. It was carried in Victoria and Queensland only, yet it received the overall support of the Australian electorate - a 53.56 per cent vote in favour.

In 1900 the great constitutional authorities of the day Quick and Garran - I hope the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) will see that my legal knowledge is improving - had this to say at page 993 of their book entitled ‘Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth’:

The preparation of a proposed amendment and its approval by an absolute majority of members in each House, or by an absolute majority of members twice in one House, is merely a preliminary act in the amending procedure. The principle element in the process is the submission of the proposal to the electors.

This is precisely what the Government proposes to do - that is, to let the electors determine whether they want to ease the rather rigid requirements which have hampered the updating of this 72-year old document.

The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1958 and again in 1959 - as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated - recognised the vital interest of the people in proposed Constitutional alterations. The Prime Minister outlined the views of this all-party Committee in his second reading speech, but I merely quote the first few lines:

If a clear majority of the electors who vote at a referendum are in favour of a proposed law, their will should not be frustrated because seperate majorities of electors have not been obtained in a majority of the States. It is, in the Committee’s opinion, more in accord with democratic principle and the developments since Federation that it should be sufficient to obtain separate majorities in at least one half of the number of States.

This amendment is long overdue. It will bring the Constitution more into line with the social and political realities of this day and age.

The second purpose of this Bill is to give electors of the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay and the Northern Territory, the right to vote at constitution referendums. A survey of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory population over the period 190M973 shows the changes that have taken place. I state them for the House. In 1901, the population in the Northern Territory was 4,81-1. The Australian Capital Territory, being in New South Wales at that time, no figures are available. On 30 June this year, the population in the Northern Territory totalled 95,600 and in the Australian Capital Territory 168,400, a grand total of 264,000. Projected populations for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory indicate that by 1990 there will be 745,000 persons in the Australian Capital

Territory, and 275,000 persons in the Northern Territory, a total of 1,020,000. By the year 2000, there will be 1,300,000 persons in the Australian Capital Territory alone, if present population trends continue. These figures are provided by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Northern Territory.

This fundamental growth and change indicates that in the future, unless this change is made, countless thousands of Australians will be denied their right to vote at the ballot box for changes in the Constitution. It is incredible that this Labor Government should have to take steps to remove the undemocratic, anomalous and unnecessary provision in the Constitution which denies this fundamental right at this date to 130,700 Australian voters. It should have been removed years ago. It would have been removed years ago but for the tardiness and indecision of previous governments, and that is a charitable view of their inactivity. This contempt of the political rights of the citizens of the Territories was seen again recently in the opposition to our attempts to obtain Senate representation for the people of these areas - the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Surely, the Australian Country Party must support a referendum to ask the people to give a vote in referendums to all people of our mainland Territories - the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, and the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has a question on the notice paper and continues to make weird noises in support of this proposal. Of course, this does not mean that they will support the legislation because we have the example of their vote on the Territory senators legislation. In this House on the first occasion they voted with the Government in favour of it, and then their counterparts in another place voted to defeat the legislation. It was almost a Laurel and Hardy production. Of course, the honourable member for the Northern Territory was the leader of the band in this sham show of support.

Then, on the second occasion, the Country Party in this House and the honourable member for the Northern Territory again expressed support for the proposal - on the voices, mind you; they would not divide - but again rejected it in another place. This, of course, is sham fighting. The Country Party cannot have it both ways. It is a case of put up or shut up.

The Country Party and its Northern Territory member scream for more representation for country districts and in this House support legislation designed for this purpose. Then, in another place, by the ruthless use of numbers, the same Country Party rejects the proposal. They cannot have it both ways. Now they are being asked to let the people decide the issue, and I suggest that they give up their trapeze acts and vote in accordance with what they say are their established political principles. I am aware that Country Party Ministers did make representations on 2 occasions to the then Liberal-Country Party coalition Government in support of this proposal but, of course, their views went unheeded and they died on the vine in their earnest endeavours.

There are no sound reasons why the electors of these Territories should not have a voice in referendums, and there are good reasons why this right should be extended to them. The political rights of all Australians are diminished while some of our citizens are denied the right of fully participating in the governing of the nation. It would be an indictment of our democratic system of government to allow this discrimination to continue on the basis of geography.

The restriction of the right to vote in constitutional referendums to the citizens of the States is a consequence of the desire of the framers of our Constitution to protect the small States. But they could not have envisaged the growth that has taken place, and will continue to take place, in the Territories. Certainly, it would not have been their intention to disenfranchise at this date 130,700 Australian citizens and, in later years, thousands more. Again, we are reminded that Quick and Garran identified the qualified electors as the custodians of the delegated sovereignty of the Commonwealth.

Our proposal is that the votes of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory electors be included in the national aggregate vote. This would not only mean that the referendum result would be more democratic, it would also give a better national reflection of the views of the Australian people. Further, it in no way infringes on the principle that the States have a separate interest to be protected with respect to constitutional change.

The present situation is not only undemocratic and archaic; it is also anomalous. Not all Constitutional referendums directly involve the interests of the States, or the powers oi State governments. Surely issues such as the rights of individuals, or the nature of parliamentary government, are of vital concern to all Australian citizens. What possible justification could there be for excluding residents in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory from expressing an opinion on questions which affect them at least as much as other Australians? For many years, the citizens of the Territories have demanded this right to vote in referendums. Their claims were strongly put at the time of the last referendum in 1967 when clearly they felt very deeply, as did all Australians, about the rights of the Aboriginal people.

The citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory merely seek the same rights as other Australians. To a great many residents who come here from other States, it is a shock to learn that they are denied a basic democratic right, once they cross the artificial frontier. These electors do not seek any special political privilege. They have taxation commitments, defence responsibilities and other obligations similar to those enjoyed by the people of the States. They have the same interests in the working of the Australian Constitution as other Australian citizens. It is high time this anomalous discrimination perpetuated under Liberal-Country Party governments ended.

All this legislation does is to seek the approval of the Parliament to give the Australian people the right to say whether their fellow men and women in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, shall have the right to exercise their vote in referendums. Surely no democrat can oppose this proposition. Surely no person who believes in democracy can be opposed to it. It should receive the support of all fair-minded citizens, and in view of that I commend the legislation to the House.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) has a very robust approach to politics which of course he expresses in a very exuberant and, at times, boisterous fashion. To some of us, of course, it is a source of constant entertainment. To others it punctuates an otherwise dreary existence. His approach though is marked by one narrow furrow by way of an objective, and that is to get power and to keep power - and, of course, he has never disguised that for one moment and he is to be heartily commended. But I must confess that my friend puzzled me somewhat this afternoon when he turned to my colleagues in the Country Party and said: ‘To describe this in this fashion would be to describe it most charitably’. Since when has the honourable gentleman ever inclined his being in the direction of charity? This would be something that I would find a matter of some puzzlement.

But then the honourable gentleman also turned to Quick and Garran and he said: ‘I hope the honourable member for Moreton will follow me through to make sure I am observing my lessons as a lawyer’. It is an absolute delight for me to find that the honourable gentleman, at long last, is observing some measure of discipline with respect to the Constitution, and that he should ever feel disposed to quote Quick and Garran was a contemplation that was never within my mind. So what a joyous afternoon it is for me to find, on a variety of counts, that the honourable gentleman has put himself into this engaging, this fascinating, this fragrant state of mind. He quoted from Quick and Garran, but what a pity that my friend did not continue to quote from it. He left out what I would have thought was the nub of this discussion. So if I may - continuing in the role of the instructor - indulge in a little bit of didacticism, let me continue a little further with the quotation from Quick and Garran. The honourable member was right; he had the right page, 993. He was right there. But the learned authors went on to say:

If a majority of the States had been ignored-

And here they are discussing the method of altering the Constitution - the Federal element in the structure of the Commonwealth would have been impaired and whittled away.

What does the honourable gentleman say to that? Why did he not continue? There is no point in seeking to gain knowledge if you only go half way; go the full way. I am sure the Minister will benefit from it.

However, I ask the Minister to listen and not to get too impatient for knowledge. The learned authors go on to say:

In a unified community it would be sufficient if a majority of the people sanctioned a revision of the Constitution. In a Federal community, in which the National and State elements co-exist, a modification of the fundamental law, without the approval of both the people and the States, would he unjust and repugnant to the whole scheme of government.

Here the honourable gentleman embraces one sentiment of Quick and Garran which, with a great flourish he seeks to invoke to his advantage. What does my friend say about the other sentiment? Would he agree with Quick and Garran that it was unjust? Would he agree with Quick and Garran that it would be repugnant to the whole scheme of government to ignore the position of the States? The honourable gentleman cannot approbate and reprobate, and this is one of these severe disciplines that I suspect he will really have to turn his mind to in order to ensure that he has a clear approach to constitutional problems.

Having said that, may I turn to what I have invited the honourable gentleman to acknowledge is the nub of this issue. I would, by way of introductory remarks, say that the Government surprises me with its measure of impatience. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has long entertained that there are blemishes as far as the Australian Constitution is concerned. I know that he has always held out, in the boldest of frames of mind, that the Constitution should be altered. One may indulge in the luxury of seeking to agree with him in some respects, but what puzzles me on this occasion about the Government which the honourable gentleman leads is the impatience, having regard to the fact that a Constitution Convention was held in Sydney a short time ago and that at that Convention, with the agreement of all of the States and with the agreement of the Commonwealth delegation, of which the Prime Minister was the distinguished leader, committees were set up to investigate various areas of constitutional reform. This was one of those areas. Indeed, without seeking to put one committee’s future in any measure of jeopardy, it was on this particular committee that I was invited by the Prime Minister to serve.

It is going to take some months for the views of that committee to be made available. It is going to take, I suggest, about another 12 months before that Constitution Convention meets again in plenary session. I would suggest that not only would it have been wise in terms of constitutional reform but also wise in terms of political procedure to have awaited the outcome of that committee’s report, and shall tell the House why. In particular, I would seek to tell my friend the Minister for Services and Property why it would have been politically wise to await that committee’s report. The States have long considered that the Palladium of their rights and liberties as States is to be found in section 128 of the Constitution.

It is very difficult to find any State member of Parliament, no matter what his political allegiance or affinity may be, who will not nurse some measure of resentment against the central Government. My friend knows this to be true. Many of them take the view we are seeking to trench upon their rights. State rights is the battle cry which I know we find on occasions irritating and a little difficult to understand, but the attitude of mind is there. The need to create a feeling for this country as one nation is one I hold to very strongly indeed. But the simple fact remains that the difficulties about constitutional reform are substantial and one can achieve them only step by step, by a process of enlightenment and, I suggest, by a process of encouragement to ensure that those who serve in State parliaments are not consumed or overwhelmed with any sense of fear, that they are convinced as to the merits of the proposal that is put before them.

I may find myself in the position of having considerable sympathy with the proposals put forward. Indeed I have unfeigned support for the proposal regarding the territories and I do not disguise that for one moment. However, it is the third proposal that concerns me, and I suggest that what the Government has done now is to imperil the prospect of constitutional reform by seeking to thrust this proposal onto the States in particular and the people in general. Let me put this proposition to the House: If at the time of Federation in the 1890s the proposal had been that a simple majority of electors voting at a referendum would be adequate means of altering the Constitution, the Federation would never have come into existence. One has only to go back to the 1891 Convention debate to realise that that was precisely the position. I just want to read one or two brief extracts from that debate to indicate the position of those who attended the 1891 Convention.

At that time there were no States in existence; they were colonies and they became States when they entered the Federation. The attitude of the colonies was quite clear. It was made clear by, for example, Mr Playford, a name well known in Australian politics, and I have no doubt an ancestor of the gentleman who has been so well known to many of us in this House.

Mr Giles:

– His grandfather.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am indebted to my friend for that observation. Speaking at the convention on 8 April 1891, in Sydney, Mr Playford said:

No one in his senses will argue that it is fair that the minority of the commonwealth shall be able to make an alteration of the constitution of the commonwealth. If that is not fair, the people are quite willing to say, ‘If we cannot carry a majority, first of the people, and secondly of the states, no alteration of the constitution shall be made.’ I say that this is fair on the one hand to the states, and on the other hand to the people. The states have no more right to say that, simply because they have a majority, though not of the people, they will override the people, than the people, on the other hand, have a right to say, Because we have a majority of the people we will override the states.’ Let us deal fairly in both cases. That is all I want. I do not care how it is brought about, so long as it is thoroughly understood that the people, on the one hand, shall not override the states, and that the states, on the other hand, shall not be able to override the people.

Of course time and events undoubtedly have swept by. The sentiment which reposes in those observations may be considered by many of us today at least to be tinged with a measure of anachronism. But the fact remains - this is the historic base from which we must consider this question - that Federation would never have been brought into being if there had been a simple deal to have 3 States or to have a majority simpliciter of electors voting. The question I ask the Government is: Why have a requirement for 3 States only? In his second reading speech the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said:

The emphasis, in this day and age, should be on flexibility and on what a majority of the electors want, wherever they live, while retaining a proper position for the States.

If one accepts that sentiment and subscribes to that argument I suggest that the logical extension of it is to have a majority simpliciter. What does the honourable gentleman mean by a recognition of what he describes as ‘a proper position for the States’? What is a proper position for the States? Those who founded the Federation said that there shall be four States in favour. The Prime Minister today states that there shall be 3 States in favour of any proposal. What is so splendidly virtuous about 3 being in agreement? I would suggest that in terms of sheer logic one could build a powerful and quite respectable case for carrying a proposition on a majority of electors alone. This, of course, is where the dilemma is with the States. There is no point in us putting our hands to the plough to do something which will not produce anything. If we are to plough in barren ground we will find ourselves in difficulties. That is what I suggest the Government is doing.

The great Burke reminds us that that which is not practical is spurious. I suggest to my friends opposite that this proposal is not practical politics today. Could one, for example, encourage those who sit in State parliaments - again I do not put them on one side or the other in terms of political sentiment - to say that they would have no ground for fear regarding this proposal. I shall give a couple of illustrations of the sort of fear which will be held by those who sit in State Parliaments. I take the assumption that the proposed referendum is carried. It would then mean that 3 States and the majority of people could alter the Constitution. Section 7 of the Constitution which provides, among other things, the number of senators from each State, goes on to observe:

  1. . but so that equal representation of the several original States shall be maintained and that no original State shall have less than 6 senators.

I must confess, speaking for myself, that I find, in terms of sheer arithmetic, it curious that Tasmania has 10 senators and New South Wales has 10 senators. But if one puts arithmetic to one side and comes back to the Constitution, of course that was the deal. The Senate was seen as a States House, a proposition which I suggest most of us today would have some difficulty in embracing. I think that it is, by and large, a Party’s House. Today occasionally one sees a flash of independence and a return to the role originally cast upon the Senate, but that is the exception; it certainly is not the rule. Imagine the sense of suspicion that would be generated in State parliaments with respect to section 7 of the Constitution. ‘Carried’ could well mean that 3 States - say, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia - could disadvantage Tasmania, Western Australia and indeed Queensland.

To illustrate the sentiment that is still abroad, at the Sydney convention on the Constitution Sir Charles Court, the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, said to me: Killen, you have some views on the Constitution which I do not share’. This is the effect of what that gentleman said. He said: ‘But you must understand our position’. Sir Charles went on to describe an incident that had happened this year in Kalgoorlie regarding the gold subsidy. He said that the miners walked down the street and when they got to the Post Office the cry of ‘Secession, secession’ rent the air. This situation has something of the Terry Thomas or Ealing film studio about it to most of us, but not to the Western Australians. One can understand their sense of indignation at and their sense of distrust of this proposal. I invite my friends to look at section 24 of the Constitution, which provides:

But notwithstanding anything in this section, 5 members at least will be chosen in each original State.

What if a government - I do not say this of my friends opposite - at some time in the future said: ‘How absurd it is to have 5 members from Tasmania’ again being persuaded on an arithmetical basis. That is where the fear comes in. I feel that the tragedy in this situation from the point of view of getting constitutional reform is that the Government has been impatient. I am sure that if the Government had waited at least until the report of the sub-committee had been brought down it would have been better. Admittedly, the committee is large, with 17 members. For many of us 17 could be a well attended public meeting, but the committee may produce something; it may not. However I think we show the members of the committee a measure of discourtesy by proceeding in this fashion. More importantly, more critically, I think the committee may have been encouraged to have seen that there could well have been some virtue in taking an overall majority and a majority of 3 States.

I do not wish to embarrass my distinguished and gallant friend from Isaacs (Mr Hamer), but he was saying to me before this debate started that at the time of Federation it was in the minds of those who attended the convention that new States would be created. The position can be made dramatically clear by taking the assumption that one more State had been created. That would have meant that 4 of the 7 States would have been sufficient to carry a proposal - four-sevenths. At the moment, as the Prime Minister observed, a two-thirds majority is needed. Is there any person seriously possessed of the idea that new States can be brought into existence? Such a scheme failed in New South Wales and even though it lingers in northern Queensland the practical prospects of having new States brought into existence seem to me to be utterly remote.

I have sought, in the matter of 18 or 19 minutes, to put my views. Every honourable member on this side of the House subscribes to the second proposal in the Bill. The first proposal has simply been swept by by time. It is quite otiose. It is the third proposal that worries us. It seeks to alter the Constitution with the consent of the majority of the people and merely 3 of the 6 States. That is not good enough. At this time I suggest that the Government, putting it in simple homely language, has put its foot in things. I think it has shown a measure of impatience which if it had held in abeyance it could well have convinced our colleagues who sit in State parliaments that we were not seeking to trench upon their position in some dramatic fashion. There is a cultivated resistance in Australia to constitutional reform. In many respects I think it is a thousand pities, but it is there and it must be recognised. The impatience of the political practitioner of today could well be the trap into which he will fall. I think it is a pity, but that is the position. The Government has now put its hand to the plough. What it will produce time and time alone will show.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) as usual has been trying to denigrate not only myself but also honourable members on this side of the House and the Country Party in particular. I noticed during his speech that he was only emphasising the fact that the Government is trying to give Territorians, both in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, a right to vote at a referendum. He sidestepped the major and cynical approach of the Government towards this question as contained in sub-section 2. (c) of the Bill whereby it is proposed that the majority shall not be decided as at the moment on a four to two basis at referendums. It is the Government’s object to carry a proposal to alter the Constitution with agreement on a 50-50 basis between the States or three all. The Australian Labor Party is engineering the blocking of this Bill by so doing. Of course, the Minister for Services and Property will once more ask how the Country Party members are voting and will say that they are not even supporting their own interests. But the Labor Party is tacking on to this Bill something that should not be there.

If it is genuine in its offer to give Territorians the right to vote at referendums it is being most insincere about tacking paragraph (c) onto clause 2 of this Bill, hence our proposed amendment. The title of the Bill is a misnomer. I imagine that people who at a referendum saw the words ‘Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution)’ would not have the faintest idea that the Labor Party was trying to swing this rather snide deal on them about altering the numbers relevant to a majority at a referendum. I agree that section 128 should be amended by deleting the words in each State’, as provided in clause 2 (a), so that Territorians would have a right to vote at a referendum. But clause 2 (c) should be deleted, and if the Prime Minister is sincere in this matter he will see that it is deleted.

I agree that we in the Territories should have this vote. That was part of my original platform in 1966. Despite the Minister’s disparaging and inaccurate remarks, as usual, about the noise I was making or about my not having done anything about this - that was a complete falsehood - on referendum day in 1967 I was in the lead of a protest procession marching down the street carrying banners bearing such words as ‘60,000 voteless voices’. On that day a public booth was opened at the showground at Alice Springs seeking signatures for a petition that I subsequently presented to this House on 22 August 1967. Recently the Minister said that I had done nothing about it. That is a typical example of the inaccuracies - I shall use that term because this is early in my speech - that flow so readily from his tongue. There was also a protest notice nailed to what would have been the polling booth door. I have that to say for the Minister.

Mr Daly:

– How is the honourable member going to vote?

Mr CALDER:

– You just be quiet. I shall mention the motion of the Northern Territorians. The Territorians sent a message to the Prime Minister. They asked whether he was aware that the citizens of the Australian Territories are not entitled to vote at referendums and therefore in a series of referendums that have been foreshadowed in future months over a quarter of a million people living on the Australian mainland will be denied an opportunity to be represented in national votes on vital issues. They considered overall that the matter should come before the Constitutional Convention. I shall quote from the Hansard report of the debates of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory an extract which will inform the Minister for Services and Property on this matter. It states:

Amongst the things which were brought out at the Constitutional Convention and referred to the executive and the standing committees to be looked at, there are some things which will be plucked out and dealt with by the Australian Government before the ordinary machinery of the Constitution deals with them. This was indicated at various stages during our discussions there. One of them is the matter of the powers in relation to prices and incomes. Another one following on that could well be the question of legislation relating to electoral matters in Australia.

That was Dr Letts, the member for Victoria River, speaking. He continued:

So that we may get the full value out of the work of the Constitutional Convention, his matter of getting our vote recorded somehow in referenda is of prime importance and should be looked at as a matter of urgency.

He also said:

Obviously there are 2 different degrees of difficulty in having us included in a referendum. There would be very little difficulty in having the votes of Territorians registered and included in the overall vote of the Australian people-

This is the one that should have been taken notice of by the Government - and therefore influencing whether there was an overall majority of votes in favour or against a particular issue.

He went on to say that it was more complicated when it came to section 128. As I have mentioned, that was Dr Letts, the Country Party leader in the Legislative Council who was speaking.

What does Mr Withnall have to say? He is an independent member. He said that Dr Letts was not really politically realistic if he thought that there would be 2 amendments of section 128 in succession. He said:

The people of Australia simply won’t accept that they have to vote on 2 amendments to section 128.

Mr Withnall is a legal man and I imagine he knows what he is saying. He also said:

I find it somewhat odd, in view of the fact that this provision in the constitution is to come under very careful scrutiny by the standing committee of the Constitutional Convention, that the honourable member proposes that we should ask the Commonwealth Parliament to put before the people a referendum in advance of the decision of the constitutional committee.

That was the point being made all through this debate. It was considered that the matter should be considered by the Constitutional Convention. Mr Withnall continued:

I would like to see that the people of the Northern

Territory have a vote but it ought to be on terms more carefully considered than this. It ought to be on terms that seek the exact way in which section 128 is to be amended. It ought to be in terms that do not permit the Commonweath government to take the best way.

As I said, an independent member spoke on those lines. He also said:

I think it anticipates a decision of the Constitutional Convention.

These are men who are actually in the Northern Territory and have first hand knowledge and experience. They have more to gain or lose than those who speak mainly, from a political standpoint, on behalf of the Government.

What did Mr Ward, another legal man in the Territory, say? He has been there since 1939 and has practised on and off during that time. He is also the Leader of the Labour Party in the Legislative Council. Mr Ward moved an amendment to the original motion that is quite interesting. He moved that the motion be amended by omitting all words after that’ and substituting:

  1. the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Northern Territory, the State Premiers and the Executive Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention, be informed of the disquietude of Northern Territory citizens at their inability to take part in referenda to change the Australian Constitution; and
  2. the Executive Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention be requested to give priority consideration to a means of providing citizens in Australian Territories with voting rights in referenda equal to those of their compatriots in the Australian States.

In speaking to the amendment Mr Ward said:

I agree with the remarks of the honourable member for Port Darwin.

He was referring to Mr Withnall, who said he considered that the matter should go before the Constitutional Convention. Mr Ward continued:

This amendment does achieve the right approach which should be adopted on a matter of this kind. I agree, nevertheless, with the honourable mover of the motion-

That is, Dr Letts from Victoria River - that this matter should be brought to the attention of the right authorities. It is a question of who are the right authorities-

Fair enough- and we have covered all those who could possibly be involved. We certainly could not bypass in any way the Australian Constitutional Convention.

The speaker was the Leader of the Labor Party in the Legislative Council. He advocated something entirely different to what the Government proposes in this measure.

On the following day in the Legislative Council that amendment was agreed to by all elected members. On that day Dr Letts said:

Undoubtedly the collective wisdom which will be brought together in the executive of the Constitutional Convention should arrive at a better and more balanced decision and one which will carry more force in an Australian referendum on the subject than a decision of one parliament or one man, the Prime Minister or the Federal Parliament.

That is what the people of the Northern Territory have said about this matter. The remarks to which I have referred relate only to the question of the right of people in the Northern Territory to vote at a referendum. At that time the members of the Legislative Council did not know that the Government proposed to introduce by this rather underhand, slimy and dishonest approach the amendment set out in clause 2 (c) of the Bill.

I do not know whether the Government hopes to have opposition to its referendum proposals blocked on this ground or whether it hopes to sneak in this provision to reduce the majority of the States in favour of a proposal in order to carry a proposal. I agree that the Constitution should be amended as proposed in clause 2 (c), but I do not agree that it should be done under the terms of this Bill. As I say, I do not know whether this Bill has been introduced for the purpose of getting some more ammunition to fire at this side of the House or for other cynical reasons. This Bill is a misrepresentation. The Australian people are not being informed of the actual purport of the Bill. As I said earlier, who would know when they went to pick up their ballot paper in a referendum, that by voting for the proposal they would lose the chance to throw out a referendum, because this Government is trying to reduce from four to two, to three to three the majority of the States required to carry a referendum. The Government is not informing the Australian people; it is misrepresenting the case not in the name of the Bill but in the form in which it has introduced the question in clause 2 (c). The Minister for Services and Property can level abuse and carry on as he usually does, but I ask him to get his facts right because we might again have to call him a liar. Sooner or later it will sink into the Australian people that that is exactly what he is. I will support the amendment that is to be moved.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I support the Bill. After listening to honourable members opposite speak to this proposed alteration and to the other proposed alterations to the Constitution one sees that what they have said certainly reflects a completely negative approach. Their speeches were clouded in the usual crop of cliches and without substance. When honourable members opposite talk of constitutional reform they obviously mean that they are all for reform providing it changes nothing. In this context what they obviously mean is that we ought to put the clock back by strengthening the States at the expense of Commonwealth power. Maybe we should and maybe we should not, but before we limit the discussion of constitutional reform to what the rights of the States ought to be, surely we should debate whether we want to preserve the federal system at all. If we want to preserve the federation in something like its present form, we should at least spell out why we want to do that.

I was interested in the remarks of the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) and of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), particularly as they related to clause 2(c) of the Bill. One claimed that the passing of this legislation would result in the abolition of the sovereignty of the States, and the other referred to destroying the States and the powers they possess. The honourable member for Moreton quoted from Quick and Garran on this aspect, and I shall do the same. In discussing the concept of federal and national elements, this is what Quick and Garran had to say:

Using ‘federal’ in its primary sense, the general difference between the federal and national elements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth may be thus defined. Those provisions are federal . . . which regard the people as inhabitants of States, separate and independent, within their respective spheres; . . . national which unite the people . . and constitute them members of a common political group . . which regard the people as the principal- source of supreme authority within the Commonwealth.

Then they dealt with the Federal Convention of 1891, and one assumes that that is what the honourable member for Moreton referred to. They said that the Federal Convention was not a body composed of delegates elected by the people of Australia and that in the ratification of the Constitution of the Commonwealth there was an independent referendum in each colony. Then they said that the Constitution was, therefore, not adopted by the people of Australia, that was to be voting ‘en masse’ or at large, or in their aggregate capacity, but by the people of the future States voting in each State as inhabitants thereof. Then they said that if a general vote had been accepted as a test, the Constitution would have been triumphantly adopted on 3 June 1898. They concluded by saying this:

The Commonwealth, however, is not constituted merely by a union of States; it is something more than that; it is also a union of people.

That is more relevant to this discussion than the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Moreton.

The other question that has been raised is the inflexibility of the Constitution particularly section 128. I was interested in what was said at the Constitutional Convention and in the reference ‘by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) to Sir John Cockburn, a famous South Australian. When dealing, in effect, with the referral provisions - they are apposite to the matter before the House - this is what Sir John Cockburn said shortly after federation:

Constitutions tough, yet tractable, give the best promise of long and healthy life, the most deadly foe to organised growth is the atheroma which cannot yield without rupture.

That typifies the Opposition’s attitude. The alterations sought in this Bill are a constructive attempt to overcome the inherent bias towards rigidity in the existing provisions, and the apparent, almost unnatural, reluctance towards change endemic in the Australian electorate, while at the same time it reserves a role for the direct expression of the popular voice. In my view, the question of the procedures for constitutional amendment is the most fundamental issue. If this alteration is not supported either by this Parliament or by the people, all the rest is mere talk. Basically, section 128 of the Constitution provides that an amendment of the Constitution requires the assent of an absolute majority of the members of both Houses of Parliament, of a majority of electors in a majority of the States, and of a majority of electors overall. The requirement of approval by a majority of electors in a majority of electors in a majority of States is too stringent because this means that majorities in four out of the 6 States must approve - in effect, 2 States can veto the proposal.

I am very pleased to note that the Liberal Party at least will adopt and endorse an extension of the franchise to the Territories. I noted the remarks of the members of the Australian Country Party in this House, but I am inclined to think that they are sycophantic because what they say in this House will be diametrically opposed in the other chamber. It will be interesting to see whether the members of the Country Party in the other place confirm the view that has been expressed ‘by members of the Country Party in this House.

I will not refer again to the 2 alterations sought to section 128 of the Constitution because they were dealt with in the second reading speech and by a majority of the speakers in this debate, but I shall make 2 observations on the proposed alteration. It retains the 2 basic ‘principles embodied in section 128, and I think everybody would agree that they are worthy of retention. The first is that no ordinary, but an absolute majority, of the members of the Houses of Parliament is required to amend the Constitution; secondly, that the people have a voice in altering their fundamental law; and thirdly, some reference is made to the States, although it is submitted that this latter principle should at least partially give way to an approach which primarily considers the electorate as a national entity.

I have said this previously, and I will repeat it: It is paradoxical to find that Switzerland, the country whose procedures most resemble Australia’s - that is, an amendment passed by Parliament, by a majority of votes, in a majority of cantons and a majority overall - has had, in contrast to Australia, the greatest number of constitutional amendments. This probably indicates that it is not so much the Australian system but the Australian electorate which is inherently conservative. After all, with a Constitution so manifestly inadequate, popular reticence towards change cannot be merely an expression of satisfaction with the status quo. This alteration is critical. and it needs to receive the wholehearted support of all sections of the community if this nation is to progress in a constructive and meaningful way. If I may use a literary comparison, this innovation is to me as gruel was to Oliver Twist - I accept it but I intend asking for more. I can only reiterate the argument I advanced at the recent Constitutional Convention.

It is admitted on all sides that our Constitution needs considerable amendment. It is no longer conducive to efficient, effectual or good government. Unless as a first step we can change the procedure for amending the Constitution, and unless we can make the procedures more flexible and positive, our chances of amending the rest of the Constitution are extremely slight indeed. At least we, as a Government, have taken the initiative for the first time in a quarter of a century to have public discussion on the Constitution and to give the people an opportunity to vote upon it. This stems undoubtedly from the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1958 and 1959. One of the reasons for scepticism stems undoubtedly from the fact that there has been no real preparation on a large-scale to determine public opinion on changes to the Constitution. Another reason is the intransigence of both the voting public and the Opposition parties.

We stand by, year after year, while vast amounts of taxpayers money are wasted on sterile disputes concerning the extent of Commonwealth and State powers while the taxpayers of the Commonwealth have to listen to Australian and State governments passing the buck back and forth. We stand by, year after year, while commercial interests play off one government against another to their own advantage. Why should we assume that we are stuck forever with a particular solution to a particular problem, a solution which was aimed at by our forefathers over 70 years ago? They had a definite objective in view, and that was the social and political integration of 6 communities into one community, for the common good of all. Admittedly they did not have much to go on. Federations are two a dollar these days but they were not that cheap in the 1890s. America and Canada were about the only two extant examples. To their credit they came up with a pretty good Constitution for their time, but surely they would have been the last people to argue that the result of their combined labours was to fix a codification of constitutional law which was to remain inflexible, immutable and binding upon all generations for all time. If that is what the Opposition contends in relation to the proposed change, it is utterly preposterous. The founders of Federation certainly would not have subscribed to that view. I fear that the chances are that the more attempts that we make at amendment under the present onerous section 128 procedures the more negative results we will get. Regrettably voting ‘no’ will become a sort of reflex action in the Australian electorate. It will become the norm and successive amendments will become harder to pass. Therefore it is imperative that we satisfactorily alter section 128 of the Constitution before we do much.

I have been asked to restrict myself to 10 minutes speaking time and I will comply with the request. Let me repeat what I said last May in a debate dealing with our offshore legislation because I believe my remarks then are equally pertinent to this debate. I also want to make an observation on the Opposition generally. Having listened intently to Opposition speakers I am reminded of an assessment I once heard of the Anglo-Saxon electorate in South Africa. It was said that they talked progressive, voted liberal and hoped to God that the conservatives got in.

Mr Viner:

– It is not a bad philosophy.

Mr JACOBI:

– It is a very good turn of phrase. It is very apposite. Unless the Parliament and the people support the Government’s attempt to amend the process of amendment, then you are just so many men hoping to God that nothing out of the ordinary will ever happen. Let me conclude by repeating what I said last May. I said that our federal system may be looked at in 2 ways. It may be reviewed either as a loose confederation of quasi-independent States or as a national federation. I do not apologise for voicing it as being the latter. If I may paraphrase something which the honourable member for Moreton said on another occasion, I am an Australian first and a South Australian after. It is about time that we acknowledged that our Constitution should no longer be used as an obstructive document which can be quoted by any partisan politician for his own purposes. Our Constitution must be clear, dynamic and forward looking. It must in my opinion serve the purposes of an Australian federation of States and not preserve a confederation. If our Constitution cannot serve us in that way, then it ought to be changed. If the law exists to frustrate common sense, then the law must be changed. I commend the constitution alterations to the House.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I rise to speak on this Bill because it is symptomatic of the type of legislation which this Government is bringing forward and, as has been mentioned by several other speakers on this side of the House, it seeks to mislead the Australian people. It seeks to mislead them by the title which reads:

A Bill for an Act To facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

Honourable members on both sides of this House would, I am sure, agree that the Constitution is probably one of the most fundamental documents governing our lives. To seek to alter that Constitution in a manner which is not clearcut is, in my view, a clear attempt to deceive the people because when this matter comes before the Australian people for a vote there is nothing in the title of the Bill which refers to the 2 ways in which the Constitution is proposed to be altered. I think that is a simple attempt to deceive. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has cogently put forward arguments in relation to both concepts which are embodied in this legislation. The first relates to providing the residents of the Territories with an opportunity to vote in referenda. I believe that nobody would argue that the people in the Territories should not have that right. They are citizens of Australia and they should have the right to vote in referenda. But in relation to this very contentious question of changing the Constitution in respect of a majority of the States, clause 2 (c) seeks to omit the words ‘in a majority of the States’ and to substitute the words ‘in not less than one-half of the States’. To me this is a retrograde step because I believe, as I have said previously, that proposed alterations to the Constitution should be made very clear so that the people of Australia have clear in their minds the questions which are before them. They will not have clear in their minds these questions before them because of the way in which this referendum will be presented to them.

There is another aspect which I believe should be investigated. It has always been a tenet of good chairmanship and good framing of motions that any motion should have only one central idea in it. If a motion has 2 central ideas and it cannot be amended, then the motion is likely to fail. This is a motion which contains two separate definite parts. We cannot, as this proposal is presently before us, vote for one and not the other. We have to vote either f of both or for neither. I am quite certain that a majority of the Australian people would be fully in agreement with the idea that all Australian electors should have the opportunity of voting in referenda. But I am less convinced that all Australians would seek to alter the constitutional requirement in relation to a majority of the States. The people of Australia are presented with a very difficult question. They have to choose between their desire to give all electors the opportunity to vote in referenda, and their opposition perhaps to the alteration of the requirement in relation to a majority of the States. I suggest that when they are called upon to make this decision, which they should not be called upon to make, then the possibility of the well-fancied proposal contained in the Bill being passed is seriously jeopardised.

Let us look at some of the arguments contained in the second reading speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). He admits in the first paragraph of that speech that 2 changes are proposed to section 128. Having admitted that, in my view there is no justification for concealing it in the title of the Bill. The Prime Minister continues:

The real difficulty is that the Australian Constitution has proved in practice to be extremely difficult to amend.

The Prime Minister says that as though it is a bad thing. Would anybody seriously suggest that a constitution should be easy to amend? I remind honourable members that the purpose of a constitution is defined as:

A system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, State or body politic is constituted and governed.

Would anybody seriously suggest, if that definition is accepted, teat a constitution should be easy to amend? Of course one would not. The Prime Minister, in his second reading speech, stated further:

The emphasis, in this day and age, should be on flexibility and on what a majority of the electors want, wherever they live, while retaining a proper position for the States.

In his speech today, the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) said that it did not matter where electors lived. I contest that point. I would argue that the geographic location of electors has a large effect on the way in which they look at propositions put to them. One would not imagine for a moment that the people of Western Australia at this time would regard centralised control from Canberra in the same light as would many people from New South Wales. The honourable member for Moreton has already given to the House a very real story of what occurred earlier this year.

I do not think that we should blind ourselves to the practicalities of the situation. The simple fact is that the geographic location of people determines in many instances their approach to and their opinions on fundamental points. I think that where people live has a real influence on the way in which they consider various matters. For example, the people of Tasmania, who are affectionately referred to as Taswegians, have a very real appreciation of their geographic location. I think that we should understand this fact. The present Australian Constitution acknowledges this appreciation. It did so at the time when it was framed. The Prime Minister states further:

We are one nation, we are one people-

That is quite right. We are. He continues:

  1. . and on national issues it is desirable that the will of the nation should be determined more by the total vote of all the people entitled to vote than by State borders.

Why not go all the way? If that is what the Prime Minister really believes, why does he not move to abolish entirely this provision in relation to the States? If he believes that, why not cut it out altogether? What he is seeking to do is to achieve by stealth what his ultimate ambition is, that is, to do away with the States as entities.

We have heard a good deal of talk from Government supporters about the fact that the Constitution presently imposes a requirement that two-thirds of the States must pass a referendum before it can become law. The Prime Minister states:

But the two-thirds majority is unreasonably high and, given that we have not gone beyond the original 6 States-

I agree with the proposition that the framers of the Constitution envisaged more States and therefore they instituted this requirement in relation to a majority of States agreeing at a referendum in the confident expectation that there would be more States created in the future. The honourable member for Moreton has postulated - I believe he is prepared to wager money on it - that more States will not be created.

Mr Killen:

– Not in our time.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Perhaps not in our time. I would not go that far. I do not say that more States will be created. If we have an increasing trend towards regionalisation as envisaged by members of the Government, there is no real guarantee that these proposed regions, should they come into effect, will not assume a more definite shape and in fact become States or Statelike in the ultimate. So, I do not think that we can say as the Government does that because the requirement is twothirds this is a bad thing. It is two-thirds of present number of States because there are 6 States. If there were seven or more States, the fraction would correspondingly be reduced. The Prime Minister states further:

As a matter of historical interest social service proposals of a wide-ranging nature which were submitted at the same time obtained a majority in all States and an overall majority.

The Prime Minister was referring to the occasion of the referendum when certain questions were passed and others were rejected. This goes to prove, I believe, that when the Australian people really wish to see an alteration to the Constitution they have no trouble in voting to achieve that end. We saw an example of this in 1967 when 2 questions, one dealing with Aborigines and the other with the breaking of the nexus between the numbers in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, were posed at a referendum. The vote was clear cut. The Australian people were in favour of the question relating to Aborigines but were against breaking the nexus between the 2 Houses of this Parliament. That seems to me to be a very good example of how, if the Government was really sincere in its wish to have these alterations made to the Constitution, it could bring its aim about, that is, by separating the questions contained in this Bill. Not only would this in my mind be a more reasonable way, a more honest way, a more direct way and a more clear cut way of presenting the alternative propositions to the Australian people but also it would probably have the very real effect of giving the Australian people the opportunity of voting in favour of the measure proposing a constitutional change to give electors in the Territories the opportunity to vote at a referendum and also to express their opinion on the second proposal contained in this Bill. To present both questions together in my view is misleading. It is slightly dishonest - perhaps it is more than slightly dishonest - and also it runs the very real risk of preventing a wished-for amendment to the Constitution being agreed to.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– One wonders what one can assume from the constant attendance in this House this afternoon of a total of one or two members of the Labor Party about the regard of Government supporters for this measure which the Government has put before us.

Mr Killen:

– It is certainly not enthusiasm.

Mr STALEY:

– There is little enthusiasm. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, Government members intend to draw a veil of secrecy over the operation in which they are involved in this Bill; perhaps they simply do not care. Even the charms and the eloquence of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) could not beguile them out of their private chambers.

This is a Bill which, as other honourable members have said, basically seeks to do 2 things. It seeks to extend to all electors the right to vote in a referendum and it seeks to reduce the requirement that there should be, in addition to an absolute majority of electors in favour of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, also a majority in a majority of States supporting such a proposal. This Bill, in seeking to do these 2 things, offers us not only a bait but also a hook. The bait is highly succulent, tender and juicy. We agree completely with the remarks of Government supporters that it is a fundamental democratic principle that all electors should have the right to vote in a referendum. I do not think there would be a member of my Party or indeed on my side of the House who would depart from that principle. I was puzzled by the remarks of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) about what might happen to this legislation in another place.

Mr Jacobi:

– What about the Country Party there?

Mr STALEY:

– That is a matter for another day in another place. But I will have to see it before I believe it.

The bait is offered that, by passing this Bill and supporting this referendum on which the Bill is based, we should give votes in a referendum to all electors in this country. We would love to be able to do it. We regret that this is merely a bait which is placed upon a hook - a hook which has some lack of attraction for us. The hook is in a way another one of those hooks which suggests that the Labor Party would, if it could, hang federalism by the neck until it was dead. Further, the Government has thrown a veil of secrecy over its operations. The basic and short statement which is contained in the Bill and which will be put before the people can only mislead the people as to the question on which they will be casting a vote in the referendum. The Bill is entitled as a Bill for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution. That is a general statement. No detail is given as to what sort of alteration is envisaged. It could be stated as an alteration of the Constitution to enable a referendum to be passed if there were a majority in three out of the 6 States or something like that. It could be stated in a dozen words at the most.

We go on and find that the other half of the proposition which is being put to the people is spelt out. It is odd that one part of the proposition is spelt out in detail while the other part warrants no detail whatsoever in the mind of the Government, the other part being, of course, to allow electors in Territories as well as electors in the States to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution. That is nothing other than an attempt to draw a veil of secrecy over what is being done to mislead the people as to the vote they will be making at the referendum. We strenuously object to this sort of thing.

Constitutions, by their very nature, should be hard to change, precisely because they are in effect the rules which govern the Government of the country. Honourable members opposite might say that in Britain the Constitution can be changed easily by a majority in the Houses of Parliament. If they have a mind to say this, I would remind them that in Britain the Constitution, at least in important particulars, is changed only after the most lengthy deliberative proceedings in their Houses of Parliament. Britain does not change its Constitution with anything like the reckless abandon with which the Government in this country these days seeks to change the Australian Constitution, and indeed, in some respects, even the Australian way of life. The Constitution is always a most serious document, because it governs the Government of the country. In a federal system it is even more important that there should be safeguards surrounding the Constitution. It is unimaginable that one would have a federal system without building safeguards of that federal system into the Constitution because there has to be some way of reconciling the obvious conflicts which will occur in such a system from time to time between all the parts or the governments of the system.

If at the time of Federation those who looked to the future felt that the small States mightbe in some peril at the hands of the predatory large States, today it is all the States who feel that they are in some peril at the hands of the predatory central government. That was not a question when the Constitution was drawn up. Few thought at the time of Australia’s Federation that the basic governing role of the States was in any real doubt. There was a thought, of course, that the big States could in certain particulars dominate. Nobody really for a moment thought that the States as basic governing units were threatened by the system. It is true that Alfred Deakin, with remarkable prescience, talked of the way in which the small States would be drawn into the orbit of the large and of the way in which the power of the new Federal Government would increase. He talked of the States being tied to the chariot wheels of the Commonwealth, and we all know those great words. As I say ,there was remarkable prescience, but the fact remains that at Federation there was no thought that the States were in dire peril of their existence.

At the time of the Constitution, as a matter of convenience, the founding fathers sought to deal with the troublesome and absurd matters which were summed up as the barbarism of borderism. They sought very often economic goals, but there was no thought that our system would ultimately become a unitary system. My point is that even then, under no real threat, the founding fathers provided for a majority of the States in a referendum as a sensible way to provide for democratic dealings between what would be regarded as equal members in a partnership who had decided for certain important and overriding reasons to come together to form a federal union but for other purposes to retain their separate existence. This after all is to this day what federalism is all about. It is about the decision to sink certain differences for certain common purposes while retaining a measure of pride in one’s own existence.

Today the spirit in which the Federal Labor Government acts is what sadly disturbs so many Australians. The logical extension of the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his opening speech in this debate is that an ordinary majority of all electors would suffice for the passage of a referendum. There is no particular magic in there being a majority in three out of the 6 States as he is suggesting with the support of his Party. There is no magic at all in this. There is indeed much more magic in the proposition that there ought to be a majority of States that would assent to anything that is as basic to a constitution as are the powers between and among the several States of the union.

It is a very odd thing that in 1973 the constitutional safeguards of the federal system should take on a new significance, but they do. They take on a new significance because we live today in what we might loosely describe as days of big government. Government is no longer a thing that you could do in the afternoon between a good lunch and those other things that gentlemen used to do in .the evenings and sometimes still do, even in this House, in the days when the British Constitution comprised the monarch, the parliament and the foxhounds. Today we live in different days. We live in days of big bureaucratic government, when big government poses a quite new threat to individuals. Only today we have been talking about such threats in government bureaucracies and the use of secrets. This means that we must take a fresh look at those sorts of things which safeguard individual rights and which safeguard a system which provides checks and balances aimed at safeguarding individual rights.

It always strikes me as a sad and quaint thing that the Australian Labor Party rails so much against the ‘inherent conservatism of the Australian people’ and that it rails against the Australian people for only being decent enough to pass 5 referendums. What it fails to see is that this is a measure very often of the wisdom of the Australian people and the basic good sense of the Australian people, who are healthy disrespecters of government and who, if they are healthy disrespecters of all government, are particularly healthy disrespecters of Canberra based government. They are healthy disrespecters, as Australian people, of big government, because they are basic respecters of the rights of individual people.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– It was of concern to me that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) should introduce into this Parliament a number of significant Bills to initiate referendums to change the Constitution at a time when local government authorities, State governments and the Federal Government are meeting together in a constitutional review convention. Irrespective of the merits of each one of the Bills that have been submitted to us, it is important that the constitutional review convention be allowed and be seen to perform the charge which has been given to it. It is a unique convention; it is a unique gathering, in that for the first time in a meeting of this sort there are representatives not only of Federal and State governments but also of that important third tier of government. Because it is a unique gathering, I regard it as most unfortunate that Bills of this character, including the one before the House, are being initiated by the Prime Minister at this time.

The second point which concerns me relates to the several referenda Bills. I suspect that the motivation of the Prime Minister and of the Government is not simply to achieve the changes that are expressed in the respective Bills just for the sake of the particular format to which each one refers. We have dealt with several in this chamber and the one before us today changes significantly the way in which a referendum is in fact passed through eliminating the necessity for it to be successful in a majority of States and also enables persons in the Territories of Australia to vote in referenda. It is not on those merits that this Bill or the other ones are being put forward. I believe that each one of them is a direct and overt expression of this Labor Government’s intention to divert more power to Canberra. Whether it be on 8 December when the people of Australia are considering a referendum on another matter or whether it be on another occasion when they consider the referendum which will flow from the Bill that is now before the chamber, the people of Australia must be conscious that each one of these measures is not presented just for the overt change of the Constitution in the way that the Bills suggest but rather in a covert fashion to ensure that additional powers can be exercised in Canberra. I suggest that through the exercise of those powers, the powers of the State governments and local governments will be eroded. Of course, in the implementation of the socialist platform of the Labor Government, the powers and rights of the individuals of this country will be eroded.

My third reason for concern with this Bill is the basis on which section 128 of the Constitution is to ki altered. I am apprehensive that in the ambit of the Parliament alone we should be recommending the submission to the electorate of a referendum to delete the necessity for a majority of the States to approve the passage of a referendum. I see that there is still a very real significance in State governments in Australia. If those States, particularly the smaller States, are to be given an opportunity to grow and prosper there needs to be some proceeding by which there can be some relative equality between States such as Tasmania and the larger States, such as New South Wales, which are bigger in population as well as in geographic area. Although we are one nation and although, as the Prime Minister said in bis second reading speech, this Bill, perhaps more than any other of the referenda Bills, seeks to achieve the concept of one nation, it is certainly true that there are variances between States in size, pressures, economic circumstances and social opportunities. As a result, I do not believe that it is suitable for us within this chamber alone to introduce a referendum to change this part of section 128.

I mentioned before my belief that if this Bill were to come forward it would have been better had it emanated or evolved from the discussions at the Australian Constitutional Review Convention. There is no justification for us in this Parliament to say arbitrarily to the States: ‘We will no longer give you as States the opportunity through the application of section 128 of the Constitution to have a separate right in determining whether the Constitution should be changed’. Let me hasten to say that this Parliament must be - of course, under the Constitution it can be only through this Parliament - the organism through which a referendum can be referred to the people. But that does not mean that, when a constitutional review convention is meeting and when the States are the principal participants in that convention, they should not have been given the first opportunity to say whether they really believed that this sort of change was in their interests. Our taking an arbitrary judgment here over and above anything that the States want is likely to ensure that this particular measure is rejected by the people of Australia.

In terms of the intrinsic merit of the proposal, again I have some doubts. I am uncertain as to whether it is desirable, for the reason I mentioned before - the difference between the big States and the small States - to remove the requirement that there should be a majority of States as well as a majority of electors approving a referendum. The character of our Constitution is such that it has stood the test of time. For all that there have been minimal changes - the five mentioned by the Prime Minister to which the people have acceded - it is a Constitution which has been changed indirectly as much as directly. Those who follow the decisions of the High Court - in particular the recent decision in the concrete pipes case - will know the extent to which the application of the Constitution and the relative powers between Canberra and the several States have changed both as a result of those decisions by the

Court and also by the exercise of the taxation power by this Parliament. As a result the Constitution has changed quite significantly. I query the degree to which in this particular area there is a need for us specifically to change the Constitution to make constitutional change easier simply by the removal of the requirement that a majority of States should support the referendum.

The other thing that concerns me is the degree to which at this stage people within the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are denied the opportunity to speak on a constitutional matter. I support wholeheartedly the part of the Bill which deals with that matter. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), who has already spoken in this debate, has since his election to this chamber expressed his concern that the same opportunities should be provided for Territorians, whether they be in the north or here in the Australian Capital Territory, to express a view on matters that affect all other Australian citizens, for those that affect all other Australian citizens must equally affect them because they too are Australian citizens. Of course there are particular problems in the constitutional relationship between the citizen of a Territory and the citizen of a State. The particular relationship of the Government of the Commonwealth to the individual Territorian is different from its relationship to every other Australian citizen. I do not see that there is any validity any longer in our preserving a circumstance whereby those who are qualified electors in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are denied the opportunity to speak on referenda referred to other Australian citizens. Accordingly, the Australian Country Party completely supports that part of the Bill which ensures that there will be a vote for electors within the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory at referenda which will subsequently be submitted to the Australian people.

The other item within the Bill is largely a procedural matter and therefore I have no disagreement with it. But let me revert finally to that part of the Bill which concerns me most - that is, the degree to which at a time when the States, local government and the Commonwealth are meeting together, the Prime Minister should have initiated measures of this sort. I believe that it reflects little credit on him and his Government that he has not been prepared to participate within that Constitutional Convention in a meaningful way. Participation does not mean just attending the sessions of the conference; nor does it mean just standing up at those sessions and expressing the intentions of his Government. It means taking part in such a way that any recommendations and submissions from the Convention are considered by this Parliament, and Bills prepared and ultimately proposals put to the people if that should be the decision of this Parliament. This Bill, perhaps more than any of the others, demonstrates that the Prime Minister is not particularly concerned with the Convention; nor, indeed, would I suggest that he is really concerned with constitutional change, other than the extent to which it is going to enhance the powers which he and his colleagues will exercise. I believe that the Australian people need to take note of the degree to which that is the significant motivation which leads the Government to present this Bill to the House at this time, rather than any genuine concern about making constitutional change simpler and easier.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– If I were not normally a charitable socialist fellow I would, of course, think that my colleagues opposite were simply trying to have 2-bob each way, as the saying goes; in other words, that they would not give votes to the people of the Territories if it came to a single straight-forward vote on the issue in this place. In fact, if the Government had brought down 2 referendum Bills they would not have supported them either. But I will be kind enough today to say that perhaps they are on our side on the question of counting every Australian as being equal in this case, especially when they are not going to stand up and be counted themselves.

This afternoon we are taking a step to integrate the people of the 2 Territories - the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory - into the Australian electorate, at least for the counting of their numbers in referendums. There can be no argument against that proposition. It is strange that we have taken so long to get around to it. I am only voicing, on behalf of the people of the Australian Capital Territory, their wish to participate in these matters. Over the last 5 or 6 weeks I have attempted, as Minister for the Capital Territory, to explain exactly why, on so many issues, the people of the Australian Capital Territory do not need to have a say.

But one could not deny their right to be counted as a part of the Australian numbers system. Therefore this is a pretty important step.

I hope that my colleagues opposite will not take the step of interfering with the free will of the people of Australia on some argument that the majority view of half of the States is not enough. I cannot understand it myself. I have listened to the comments of my colleagues opposite. If they were to carry their argument to its logical conclusion they would have to say that we must have a majority in every State. I heard them speak as though their hearts bleed for the Tasmanians. If in this way we were going to take away the right from one fragment of the people of Australia, surely that fragment is just as important as any other. Therefore we are back to the laws of the Medes and the Persians - the law written years ago must not be changed. Honourable members opposite ought to be moving to amend the Constitution to provide that it can be changed only by a majority of the States. Why should the Tasmanians be inflicted with the will of the other 6 million voters in Australia? Their argument is, of course, nonsense. Anything that is written in which makes it difficult to change a rule is against the general procedures of the time and, I think, a bad general principle.

What are some of the things about which my colleagues opposite argue? Firstly, I say - I am sure that this is in the spirit of the national way of looking at it - that we are moving to a greater direct responsible attitude by the Commonwealth towards both individuals and institutions, but there is only one way in which we can do that, that is, by taking the various steps that we have initiated over the last few weeks so that the Government can deal directly with individuals and with collections of individuals gathered, as they may be, in municipalities and so on. There has been a change in the way in which the Australian Government has been associated with the government of this country. Until recently - the procedures started during the term of office of the previous Government - it was, generally speaking, the abstractions with which we dealt here at a Commonwealth level. That was certainly the case until the social services referendum of 1946. But we are now accepting direct responsibility for individuals as such. The Government must be clothed with the authority and it must have the machinery to do so.

I cannot understand the weepings, wailings and gnashings of teeth by honourable members opposite about centralism and all the rest of it. I think that only shows how much they are living in the past. For instance, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) had to say something about timing. He said that we are now in the position where a Constitutional Convention is under way and it is bad timing to step in now. I have listened to my friends opposite for 17 years. Before I became a member of this Parliament I suffered under them for 40-odd years. For most of my life I have been ruled by people such as they. It is never time. They would all be revolutionaries as long as the revolution is tomorrow week and not today.

Mr Katter:

– You told us that it is time.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. The people of Australia said it was time and the people of the electorate of Wills said emphatically, as they have been saying for years, that it was time. In politics one does what one has to do today because one knows perfectly well from one’s experience that tomorrow one will be a member of the former Government if one is not careful.

Mr Bourchier:

– Those are the truest words you have ever said.

Mr BRYANT:

– Honourable members opposite have had more recent experience than I of being members of a former government. I have no doubt that they will have a long period of time in which to learn what it is like because the citizens of Australia will become aware of the pettifoggery honourable members opposite have introduced into one of the most considerable areas of Australian activity, that is, Australia’s own constitutional exercises. How on earth honourable members opposite can justify the opposition they have expressed to some of the reasonable propositions the Government has put forward in this respect in the last few weeks, I do not know. Frankly, now is the time to launch into a constitutional change. It may well be that some of the propositions put forward may not be accepted.

It is my view that the referendum system ought to be used more emphatically and more often and that the people, if we can establish the system, ought to be consulted more regularly about matters of great moment. I would like to see it used much more effectively at local government level. We are, in fact, talcing a major democratic step in placing these ballot papers before the citizens of Australia and asking them to make judgment upon the questions. In some areas honourable members may well have doubts as to whether they would vote for the propositions put forward. I am emphatically in favour of the proposals that have been put forward in the last few weeks. Plenty of people who think about politics in the same way as I do have had doubts about some of them. But I can think of no reason whatsoever why such propositions should not be put forward. So we must proceed to do so now.

It has been a long, slow haul since the 1890s. After listening to the remarks of my colleagues opposite, I cannot understand how we ever federated. Just imagine the arguments they would have put up 80 years ago. Just imagine the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) stepping out of the ivory towers of Toorak in 1893, as he does now. He would have said: ‘Look, you cannot do that. You will be interfering with the sacred rights of us Victorians if you make us join with those people from north of the Murray’. It is one of the miracles of Australian public life, considering the fact that there are still people like that here, that 80 years ago we were able to have Constitutional Conventions and to enhance the tremendous document that is the government arrangements of Australia, as a result of the vote of the people of Australia. I just do not know why so many of them have gone down hill so far in the last few years. When one hears what they have to say one must admit that what happened is one of the astonishing exercises in Australian politics.

Let us examine some of the other things that were asserted by honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly by the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party. They are a notable bunch of democrats. One has only to consider the way in which they have rigged every electoral boundary in Australia and how they have prevented people from voting in Legislative Council elections throughout Australia to see how they would be worried about such matters. He said that this was a direct and overt expression of the Australian Labor Party’s thirst for power, or words to that effect. Those are magnificent words. Of course, they are all part of a cliche to try to stampede the people into voting no. Then he talked about the power of the States. I wonder what he meant by the word ‘power’. One of the great exercises in which he and his colleagues indulge is the enshrining of the

States of Australia as some sort of holy writ. Let us examine them and see what they are like. Let us examine, for instance, the recent return to office in New South Wales of the Liberal-Country Party Coalition.

Mr Bourchier:

– What a victory.

Mr BRYANT:

– It was achieved without the majority of the people voting for it. If one were able to enshrine the arguments of other honourable members opposite he would have to say that that is not a true vote. Fifty-one per cent of the people of New South Wales have not said ‘Let us have Askin. We will have to have other elections until we find out’. Perhaps, on their views, we should proceed until we get an absolute majority voting for somebody. But, of course, they are not going to do that. The number of times the Liberal and Country Parties of Australia have achieved an absolute majority of the votes is minimal indeed. Of course, what honourable members opposite have established is that they are more concerned with power than with people. They are continuously enshrining the State governments and even the municipal councils as having greater heart, feeling and sensitivity about people than this Commonwealth Government. The Australian government has made some great errors in the past, but in general it is based upon adult suffrage, no matter how much tinkering goes on from honourable members opposite.

But just consider the records of the State governments and municipal councils when it comes to the arbitrary and capricious exercise of their power over people. Their bulldozers will knock streets of houses down, their governments will hang and flog, and they will rig electoral boundaries and gerrymander the whole system. Honourable members opposite cannot make any case for preserving States’ rights or anything else. The operation here today is one of the continuous steps we will have to take to bring the Australian Constitution into this century. As I said at the beginning of my speech, one can only wonder at the enormous persuasive capacity of our predecessors 80 years ago who managed to convince the Australian people - I suppose there were people like honourable members opposite representing them then - to federate into one nation. This legislation represents more of the long, hard steps we must take to bring the Constitution up to date. By their argument about the majority of the States, honourable members opposite are simply enshrining dotted lines on the map as, again, some form of holy writ. To honourable members opposite, things that were drawn on the map over a century ago by the boffins of Whitehall represent more than national sentiment. So, I hope the House will vote unanimously for these procedures and that honourable members will all get out and start to work among the people of Australia to accept a national attitude towards the Australian Constitution.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

Section 128 of the Constitution is altered -

  1. by omitting the words “in each State” (twice occurring); (b) by omitting the words “But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.”; and
  2. by omitting the words “in a majority of the States “ and substituting the words “ in not less than one-half of the States “.
Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

In paragraph (a), omit all words after “by”, substitute the words “inserting after the words ‘in each State’ (twice occurring) the words ‘and Territory’ “.

My amendment has been circulated or is in the course of being circulated. It may seem to be only a drafting amendment but it has a little bit of constitutional force behind it and I think the Government might seriously consider it. My amendment seeks to alter section 128 of the Constitution. Clause 2 of the Government’s Bill reads:

  1. By omitting the words “in each State” (twice occurring);

What I suggest is that instead of deleting the words “in each State” (twice occurring) there be substituted the words “inserting after the words ‘in each State’ (twice occurring)” the words ‘and Territory’. Section 128 of the Constitution would then read -

The proposed law . . . shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

Then at the foot of the next paragraph, the section would read: . . either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote

The proposed amendment does not alter the impact of what the Government says it wants to do; it simply puts it in better drafting form, and I think it improves the Bill. I suggest to the Government that it might accept this amendment which, I repeat, would put in better drafting form what the Government says it wants to do.

The Government’s Bill seeks to omit the words, ‘in each State’, in the Constitution. If we accept that amendment the section would read:

The proposed law …. shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote ….

It is part of the federal compact that the States be preserved. If one looks at the foot of section 128 of the Constitution one sees a requirement that an amendment of the Constitution must ‘be approved by the majority of the electors in each State. That being so, the Constitution should provide also that a referendum is put to the electors in each State. I do not dispute - indeed I support it - the contention that we should also allow the electors in the Territories to vote and that their vote should be counted in determining the overall majority. I and the Government are at one on this. We are both trying to do the same thing. But I would suggest to the Government that it would be better drafting to keep the words as they appear in the section. One is always a little worried about omitting from the Constitution words which protect the States.

To retain the words ‘in each State’ and simply add the words ‘and Territory’ would mean that the Bill would be submitted to the electors in each State and Territory separately. This is necessary, of course, if one is to satisfy the requirements of a majority in the majority of the States. I am not suggesting that we should do anything to impair the position of the States - very much the contrary. I think that when we are drafting an amendment to the Constitution, we should endeavour to preserve the proper functions and rights of the States. But at the same time I agree with the Government that the votes of those in the Territories should be counted in the general total which is required of all electors to carry a referendum. I agree with the Government that the electors in the Territories should have that right, but I do not think that since the Constitution is a federal compact we should, in any way, impair the rights of the electors in the States.

I know that with this Government - and I must say, with respect, it was with past governments also - it is a matter of pride not to accept an amendment even though it may result in an improvement to the Bill. Maybe that same kind of foolish wide actuates even the Prime Minister, although we know that the Prime Minister, of all the people, is a modest man and is quite devoid of any feelings of pride. I suggest to the Prime Minister that in this matter of drafting, he should swallow not his pride but the pride of his Party, and accept my amendment, which is reasonable and one that improves the drafting and makes clear the residual rights of the States in the federal compact. I ask the Government not to take out, even from this section, the phrase ‘in each State’ but to prefer the machinery whereby the referendum is submitted to the electors in each State and the Territories.

Let me again make clear my amendment which has now been circulated. I suggest that we should not take out the words ‘in each State’ twice occurring; but instead that we should leave in those words and add after them the words ‘and Territory’. This would make clearer to the people in the Territories what we are doing for them. Moreover, it would preserve, as it should preserve, the position of the States explicitly in this section of the Commonwealth Constitution which is part of the federal compact and is drafted around the residual rights of the States in that compact.

I ask the Government to reconsider this matter. My amendment would make no substantial difference to what the Government says it wants to do, but I think it represents an improvement in drafting. It would better preserve the federal nature of the Constitution, and it is one which I hope the Government will be inclined to accept. If the Government has some kind of hidden meaning in what it is doing, if it wants really to make a first move towards the assassination of the States by leaving out these words, if there is bad faith in the Bill, the Government will not accept my amendment. But I would prefer to believe that in this instance, and only in this instance, the Government means what it says and will, therefore, be inclined to accept my amendment which clarifies the position and does not derogate from what the Government says it wants to do. If on the other hand this whole proposal is meant as a first step to the eventual assassination of the States, of course, the Government will reject my amendment. I am not saying that the Government wants to do this at present. Let us consider this amendment on its merits. I believe that there are very great merits in making an amendment along the lines I have suggested.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– The amendment of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) would make no difference in the circumstances which apply in Australia at the moment where there are 2 Territories. It would appear that on this matter everybody in the chamber agrees that everybody entitled to vote for the House of Representatives should be entitled to vote on the question of amending the Constitution. The Government, however, does not accept the amendment because it is quite conceivable that there will be not two but one Territory. It is quite within contemplation that one of the Territories might become a State within the meaning of the Constitution. When that happens the term ‘of the electors in each State and Territory’ would not be apt. The correct terminology then would be ‘in each State and any Territory’.

When we are amending the Constitution we ought to propose amendments which will stand for as far ahead as we can contemplate. I know that contemplation is sometimes more distant in these matters than any of us would expect. For instance, the founding fathers of Australia’s Constitution certainly would not have expected that after three-quarters of a century there would still be only 6 States. I am not without hope that there will be more than 6 States in the lifetime of many members here. On the other hand I would not imagine that there is likely to be more Territories in the sense of the Constitution. In those circumstances I believe that the objective that we all have - that is, the giving of a vote on proposals to amend the Constitution to every elector qualified to vote for the House of Representatives - is best secured by removing the limitation contained in the words ‘in each State’. To add ‘and Territory’ would deal with the present situation but it might not be appropriate in circumstances which we ought to have in contemplation.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– During the second reading debate I and other honourable members on the Opposition said that the critically important factor for us when considering the first proposal in relation to paragraph (a) of clause 2 was to ensure that the residents of the Territories - that is the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, and the Northern Territory - should have a vote if they are qualified under the law. We have no hesi tation in repeating now in emphatic words, that we want those people to get a vote. I pointed out that there are 264,000 citizens in the 2 Territories and of those 130,700 are entitled to vote.

I have looked at the amendment that has been prepared and submitted by my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), during the time I have been sitting at the table waiting to commence the Committee discussions. I do not believe that in present circumstances it adds enough to the Bill to justify a change in the proposal and could, in fact, in the future create some difficulties.

For that reason the Opposition does not press Mr Wentworth’s amendment. Provided it is ensured that the 130,700 people qualified to vote will be entitled to vote, we as an official Opposition, will be prepared to support paragraph (a) of clause 2.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– It is perfectly true that the Opposition as a whole has not had an opportunity to consider my amendment because it was submitted by me only a few moments ago. Of course the Opposition in the Senate may have an opportunity to consider it at greater length as more time will be available to it. I can understand the dilemma of the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) who just has not had time to think about it and realise what it is all about. I can understand and appreciate his position. I do not want to press it any further than that.

However I address myself to the remarks which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was good enough to let fall from his lips in this chamber. His observations do not seem to me to be terribly logical. I would be quite happy to accept as an amendment to my amendment the inclusion of the words ‘and any Territory’. I do not think it is necessary but if he would like it I would be very happy to meet the honourable gentleman in that way. It does not seem to me to add to or detract from the thought that was in my mind when I moved my amendment. Of course one has to look to the future. I do not think it likely that the Australian Capital Territory will be erected into a State. If it were, quite extensive alterations would be necessary to the Constitution. If the Australian Capital Territory became a State I suppose it is possible that there would be no Territories but if this were so the Constitution, not only in this respect but in other clauses, would require significant alterations. So I do not think that this is a contingency which we need to consider. But even if we were to consider it, let us look at the position. Suppose the Prime Minister is right in forecasting that at some date he will make further States, perhaps of the Northern Territory and perhaps even of the Australian Capital Territory so that they would cease to be Territories and become States. If this were so and there were no Territories my amendment would still stand. The wording would be ‘should be submitted in each State and Territory’ and if there were no Territories there would be no Territory to which to submit a question. But if the Prime Minister wants to put in ‘and any Territory’ that is fine. If there is no Territory the clause still stands even though its operation becomes nugatory. It may be at some later date .that there shall be no Territories as there are at present.

We cannot forsee history. There still might be some part of Australia which could become an Australian Territory. For example, at present the Northern Territory is a Territory but when the Constitution was drafted the Northern Territory was part of the State of South Australia. So, in point of fact, a new Territory was created in the past. It may be that this will not occur again. I cannot foresee it occurring again, but even if the possibility remains at least the drafting that I have suggested would be better than that proposed by the Government. I ask the Government not to press this matter of foolish pride. If we can improve the wording, let us improve it. If the Prime Minister wants to say ‘and any Territory’ let him say that. That would be no skin off my nose. I should be perfectly happy if he were to take that course and to accept the amendment which would read ‘and any Territory’. It is not often it occurs but the honourable gentleman and myself would be ad idem on the matter. Our minds could work together. Surely the Prime Minister is not going to stand fast on a drafting matter when obviously what he is putting forward is less intelligible to the public. It means less. It is perhaps capable of being twisted.

As I listened to the honourable gentleman I was wondering what was going through his mind. I know that he talks about creating more States but the policy of his Party, in the background, is to abolish the States. That policy is first to abolish the Senate which is the States Mouse. That is written into their platform and constitution. The Australian Labor Party wants to abolish the Senate - the House of the States. It wants to centralise all power in Canberra. That is not only contained in the Party’s constitution; it is shown in practice. It is what the Government has been doing in the past few months. If it wants to abolish the States perhaps it will stick to its drafting. If that is so it will take the States out of the Constitution everywhere it can. It will omit the words ‘in each State’. This may be just a little straw in the wind - it may not mean very much - but if the Government has nothing to lose by making itself plain and by retaining the words ‘in each State’ and putting after them, if it likes, ‘and any Territory’ that would surely satisfy the quite chimerical fears expressed by the Prime Minister in this House a few moments ago. Surely there should be some reason in this. Surely the Government is not so proud that it will not look at an amendment on its merits. My Party-

Mr Daly:

– You never did.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Will you be quiet? I know that you are Leader of the House but will you let somebody else talk for a moment?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order!

Mr Daly:

– You have never accepted an amendment in your life.

Mr WENTWORTH:

- Mr Chairman, will you call the Leader of the House to order?

Mr Daly:

– Your own mob will not support you.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– My Party has not had an opportunity to consider the matter. It occurred to me only a few moments ago when I was reading the Bill and looking at the draft. Of course I should have thought of the amendment before, but nobody else thought of it before. Perhaps I am a little slow witted but I am not as slow witted as the Government is. I agree that my Party has not had an opportunity to consider it and therefore as an official Opposition, as the right honourable member for Lowe so rightly said, it would not have a chance of really supporting the amendment, as a Party. The Government which has been looking at this matter for a long time has all these constitutional aspects in mind. Surely it can make up its mind on this. If it makes up its mind against it I am afraid that honourable members will have to read the most sinister implications into its decision. If the

Government has made up its mind against it that reveals that there is something sinister.

By the time it comes to the Senate my Party will have had the opportunity to look at it. By that time I believe that some of the doubts that remain in the mind of the right honourable member for Lowe will have been dispelled. Perhaps it will be possible to explain the matter at greater length. I am quite happy to accept the words ‘and any Territory’. I am as flexible as can be in these things - I am always big hearted - but if the Government does not want it done in this House now perhaps the Senate might have another look at it.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– The Opposition is also prepared to accept the proposal contained in clause 2(b) of this Bill which makes provision for omitting the words:

But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

It will be remembered by honourable members that on at least 2 occasions in discussions of other Bills relating to referenda we have drawn attention to the fact that there are sentences in various sections of the Australian Constitution which provide that, until the Parliament or some other institution otherwise provides, there is a constitution requirement as to the law that shall prevail. I am glad that somewhat tardily the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Opposition. I believe it is a sensible proposal to delete this clause and consequently we have no objection to the deletion.

I move now to what is now the critical sub-clause so far as the Opposition is concerned. That is clause 2 sub-clause (c) of the Bill which proposes to omit the words ‘in a majority of the States’ and to substitute the words ‘in not less than one-half of the States’. This is an amendment that we reject. The Opposition will vote against it and will take it to a division. I admit that there is little doubt that the Australian Constitution has been found difficult to amend in practice and that since 1901 there have been something of the order of 26 proposals to amend the Constitution but only five of them have been approved by the people of this country. I have also pointed out that that is as it should be because the people of this country in whom sovereign power resides - at least the qualified electors of this country in whom sovereignty resides - should be the people who determine what changes should be made to the Australian Constitution, not only as a matter of logic but also to comply with the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution.

What ‘ would happen if the proposed amendment were made? It would mean in effect that there would be an amendment to that section of the Constitution which requires that before a referendum can be successful it must be approved by a majority of all the electors and by a majority of electors in 4 States out of 6 States. To put it in inure simple language, there would be a different requirement in place of the provision *b.% presently exists in the Constitution. Tl- ;ie. result of that would be that instead of a majority of electors in 4 of the 6 States, and also a majority of all electors being required to vote for the proposal, the Government would need only a majority of electors in 3 of the 6 States and a majority of all electors before action could be taken by the GovernorGeneral.

We have pointed out also that the reason this section was initially incorporated in the Constitution was, firstly, to sustain the Federal Constitution, and secondly, to ensure mature consideration of the proposal and settlement relating to organic changes of the Constitution. In other words, to put it shortly, the section was designed to sustain the Constitution and to give the people adequate time in which their mature consideration could be exercised so that they would be the ones who would have sovereignty and the right to determine the changes that were to be made. I have pointed out also that change is the law of life and of society. It is a law of persistent change in the environment and persistent social change as well. The Opposition does not object, and would never object, to cases where it is essential or desirable that changes should be made to the Constitution in order to meet changing circumstances and where the people themselves can be convinced or come to the conclusion beyond doubt that change is desirable.

The Opposition believes also that when there is a compact, such as in the Australian Constitution, between the States, the Commonwealth and the people, the people should be given ample opportunity to make up their minds, and they should be thoroughly briefed not only as to the meaning of the changes, but also as to the consequences that might flow from those changes. Because we do not believe these conditions have been met we have come strongly to the conclusion that we will move for the deletion of clause 2 (c). I move:

Omit paragraph (c).

I think the Opposition has an overwhelmingly good case. The greatest students and the most competent people who have thought about the Constitution - and I include both Quick and Garran - have come to exactly the same conclusion as we, in the Opposition, have come to. In other words, if honourable members read Quick and Garran and understand the constitutional principles and the realities of a federal and democratic system that guided the fathers of the Constitution, they must come to the conclusion that before a referendum is put to the Australian people they must be informed of exactly what is involved in the proposed change. Do the people of Australia want to sustain federalism?

I believe that certain other matters ought to be drawn immediately to the attention of honourable members.

The Prime Minister on at least 2 occasions has stated that amendments to the Constitution are not necessary and that if the Government wants to carry out its objectives it cannot treat the Constitution as an alibi. Secondly, as I think my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) would point out, the representatives of the people in the Northern Territory, and particularly the representatives of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, believe/ that this matter should be discussed by the Constitutional Convention. I believe that this is a matter which could easily be considered by the Constitutional Convention. It should at least be able to submit a report and recommendation which would give all of us the opportunity for more mature consideration and more mature thought before any further action is taken. What is proposed in the Bill would not be in the best interests of the Australian people. For that reason the Opposition decided to move the amendment, which I have already circulated, and we will divide on this amendment.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– The Government does not believe that there is a case for deleting or deferring this provision. The Constitution at the moment states that referendums to amend it must be approved by a majority of all the electors voting, and also by a majority of the electors voting in a majority of the States. The Bill proposes to put to the people the proposition that amendments to the Constitution will be carried if they are approved by a majority of all the electors voting, and also by a majority of the electors voting in not less than one-half of the States. The Government believes that there is no case for deferring this proposition. It is economical and sensible to hold referendums at the same time as elections for either or both Houses of the Parliament. An election for at least one-half of the Senate must be held before the end of next June. It would, accordingly, be sensible and economic to have a referendum on this proposal, as well as referendums on other proposals, at the time of that Senate election.

This proposal is before the Constitutional Convention. I do not understand that anybody at the Constitutional Convention - certainly not the representatives from the 2 Territories - had proposed that the people in the 2 Territories should be denied a vote in referendums any longer than was necessary. None of them at the Constitutional Convention demurred at the proposition that a referendum to give the people in the Territories a vote in subsequent referendums should be held at the earliest possible moment. The proposal to hold a referendum on this subject has commended itself not only to the present Government but also to the Gorton Government. It was at least considered by the McMahon Government.

It was not rejected by the McMahon Government; it was deferred by the Gorton Government. This proposal has not been rejected by our 2 predecessors, and it has been adopted by my Government The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) said in rather a high flown passage that high opinions of best constitutional view is that the position should remain as it is.

Mr McMahon:

– I did not put it that way. You are misquoting me. I stated the conditions under which changes should take place. For those reasons I said that we want to delete this paragraph. That is right, I accept what you say, but I do not accept the reasoning behind it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Let me then quote some eminent associates of the right honourable member for Lowe and, in the constitutional context, I am proud to say, associates of mine. In 1958 and 1959 his fellow Ministers and my colleagues on the Constitutional Review Committee recommended this change. His associates and my colleagues to whom I refer were the Honourable Sir Neil O’sullivan, once AttorneyGeneral; the Honourable Sir Alexander Downer a former Minister and later Australian High Commissioner in Britain, and the son of one of the founding fathers of the Constitution; and the Honourable Mr Justice Joske. The 2 members of the Country Party on that Committee supported the proposal. They were the Honourable David Drummond, a former member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales as well, of course, as a former member of this House, and Mr Len Hamilton. My colleagues in the Labor Party, all supported this proposal. It is a proposal which commended itself to the whole spectrum of political opinion in both Federal Houses of Parliament in 1958 and 1959.

Mr Mackellar:

– Was it unanimous?

Mr WHITLAM:

– My recollection is that one Liberal member dissented. It was Senator the Honourable R. G. Wright. But the other 3 Liberals, the 2 Country Party men and the 6 Labor Party men all supported it. In its 1958 report the Committee pointed out:

It is, in the Committee’s opinion, more in accord with democratic principle and the developments since Federation that it should be sufficient to obtain separate majorities in at least one-half of the number of States.

It repeated that view in its 1959 report - its final report. Instead of requiring a majority of States, which at present means 4 out of 6 States and thus a two-thirds majority of the States, what the Government is proposing is that a majority of voters in not less than half the States will be necessary for the carriage of an amendment to the Constitution, as well, of course, as an overall majority of voters in the whole of the continent. The present provision means - I quote the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review: for every State in which there is an adverse vote there must be a favourable vote in two States. . . A constitutional change has to be supported not only by a majority of States but by two-thirds of the States.

Clearly the proposed change will facilitate alterations to the Constitution. The 2 referendums which would have been carried if the Constitution had read as this Bill now proposes were the referendums in 1946 on the organised marketing of primary products and on the terms and conditions of industrial employment. The right honourable member for Lowe has been a Minister in charge of both those subject matters. His first portfolio was that of Primary Industry. He was later Minister for Labour and National Service. There is no question that the right honourable member would have found it easier to legislate and to administer for the peace, order and good government of this country if he had the 2 subject matters which a majority of the electors in the States and a majority of the electors in 3 of the States wished to put in the Constitution in 1946. Those words did not go into the Constitution, not because there was not a majority of electors in the States in favour of them being inserted in the Constitution but because there was not a majority of electors in a majority of the States. There was a majority in 3 States but not in the necessary 4 States. This is a proposal that would have made it very much easier for our predecessors to govern in two crucial areas. I would not believe that the right honourable gentleman would demur to the proposition that he would have been even more successful as Minister for Primary Industry and as Minister for Labour and National Service if the Constitution had been altered as a majority of the electors in the States and a majority of the electors in not less than half of the States voted for in 1946.

The Government does not accept the amendment which seeks to delete paragraph (c) of clause 2. We believe that this early opportunity should be taken of asking the people to decide what they think on a proposition which was recommended by so representative a body of Federal parliamentarians from both sides of both Houses 15 years ago. It is high time that the electors were given the opportunity to express their view on a matter which has been supported for so many years.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr McMahon:

– Mr Chairman, I am entitled to reply because I was asked to make clear my views.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The question is: That the question be now put’.

Mr McMahon:

– But I was given an assurance bv the Prime Minister to the effect that I would be able to reply.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The question is: That the question be now put’.

Mr Whitlam:

– If that is the right honourable gentleman’s understanding we will withdraw the motion.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr McMahon:

– Mr Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! As there are other honourable members rising in their places I am obliged to call them.

Mr McMahon:

– Speaking very quickly-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman will have to ask for leave.

Mr Whitlam:

– He has leave.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave has been granted. 1 call the right honourable member for Lowe.

Mr McMAHON (Lowe)- The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has made 2 comments which I believe I should now correct. The first refers to my tenure of office responsible for the Department of Primary Industry and later on the Department of Labour and National Service. The honourable gentleman expressed the view that it would have been much easier for me to carry out the administration of those 2 departments if constitutional changes had been made. I can state emphatically that I do not believe - and I think I have in fact administered as many departments as has any other person in Australia’s history - that changes of the kind which are contained in clause 2 (c) of the Bill would in any way have improved my capacity to administer either of those 2 departments. I would never like to say who ever administered any department that I am the greatest, but at least I think I am able to say that in those days the departments were administered with at least some degree of efficiency. Different people will come to different conclusions as to what the degree of efficiency might have been. I admit immediately that I held the strong view that there should have been at those times 2 amendments to the Constitution - one relating to industrial relations and the other giving to the Commonwealth more complete power relating to interest rates and monetary policy. But since the concrete pipes case I have come to the conclusion that the second one was not necessary.

The suggestion has been made - I will deal with this later - that the provisions contained in clause 2 (c) would facilitate changes to the Constitution. I do not believe that we should go to any great lengths to facilitate changes unless there is a clear and unmistakable expression of opinion on the part of the Australian people who are themselves qualified to vote - the people of this country in whom the sovereign or quasi-sovereign power resides - that a change is necessary or desirable or unless the Government has clearly and honestly come to the conclusion that these qualified people themselves desire that an amendment to the Constitution be made.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)- Mr Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 46

Majority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– Shortly before the suspension of the sitting I moved an amendment to clause 2 (c) of the Bill, the effect of which, if it had been agreed to by the Committee, would have been to retain in section 128 of the Constitution the wordsin a majority of the States’ and to prevent the substitution of the words ‘in not less than one-half of the States’. I pointed out how the proposed new paragraph (c) would completely change the tenor of section 128 of the Constitution, in the sense that it would be taking away some powers of the States relative to the Commonwealth and that adequate time was not being permitted in this Parliament to debate the measures proposed. I now come to the long title of the Bill which is in these words:

A Bill for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

Mr Chairman, may I ask for a little quietness? It seems as though my friends on the other side of the chamber are in somewhat the same position as they were last Wednesday night.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I ask honourable gentlemen on both sides of the House to be silent so that the right honourable member who is addressing the chamber may be heard.

Mr MCMAHON:

– I must repeat the long title of the Bill. It says:

A Bill for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

As you will know, Sir, and as I believe all honourable members will know, the long title is critically important in referendum proposals because it is the long title that people will see on their ballot paper. Consequently, it should honestly and accurately reflect the substance of the Bill. Therefore I believe that we must consider the long title and ask ourselves whether the words ‘to facilitate alterations to the Constitution’ are a correct or false description of 2 relevant parts of the Bill. I repeat that they are important so far as the actual voter is concerned. These are the reasons for believing that the words false description apply not only to the rejection of clause 2 (c) but relate also to the long title of the Bill.

If these 2 changes” are not made - one has already been rejected- then clause 2 (c) will obviously be an attempt to whittle away the federal system and the powers of the State governments. It will take away powers that are now vested in the sovereign States and will attempt to vest them in the Commonwealth. Every honourable member who has a conscience will have to admit that proper consideration has not been given to the meaning of the words and to the consequences of the proposed changes. I am prepared to say that there would not be half a dozen honourable members who would have a clue as to the meaning. The Government is doing this to prevent proper public discussion in what is, after all, the senior and most representative Parliament in the Commonwealth. If we look at the long title of the Bill we will see that it docs not truly reflect the meaning of the Bill. In other words, it is a false presentation, and that presentation should be altered not only in the interests of accuracy and justice but also to permit the Australian people to know exactly what is contemplated.

The Opposition wants to omit the words ‘To facilitate alterations to the Constitution’ and to substitute the words ‘To reduce the number of States required to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution’. Yet nowhere in the long title is there a reference to that fact. Consequently, every honourable member with a conscience should be prepared to admit that the long title is false, is capable of misunderstanding and is, therefore, deceptive. For those reasons I formally move:

Omit the words ‘To facilitate alterations to the Constitution’, substitute the following words:

To reduce the Number of States required to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution.’

The title will then go on to say: ‘and to allow Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution’.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– The title of the Bill is ‘A Bill for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution’ etc. The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) seeks to alter those words to A Bill for an Act to reduce the number of States required to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution’ etc. The long title to a Constitution alteration Bill is significant in that it appears twice on the ballot paper at a referendum. The consequence of adopting the amendment which the right honourable gentleman has moved clearly would be to complicate the ballot paper.

Mr McMahon:

– It would be honest and fair.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It would confuse the electors.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I asked for silence when the right honourable member for Lowe was speaking. I now ask for silence when the Prime Minister is speaking.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I appreciate your protection, Mr Chairman, because I listened to the right honourable member for Lowe with rapt attention. I confess that I came down in a later shower than he did. Nevertheless I do not think he would really expect many honourable members to be so naive, innocent and guileless as to believe that this third or fourth attempt to alter the long title of the current Constitution alteration Bill would have any significance other than to complicate the ballot paper, and any purpose other than to confuse the electors. The right honourable gentleman said that the present title is deceptive and that it offends the conscience. I think he used the word ‘conscience’. I suppose to use a more earthy term he would say it was slanted. The words he used were themselves somewhat slanted because they seek ‘to reduce the number of States required to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution’. He does not point out that the number of States required to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution at present is four, that is, 4 States out of six - a two-thirds majority - 2 States voting in favour for every one voting against a referendum.

If the right honourable gentleman wants a truly accurate, factual, dispassionate description why does he not use some words such as ‘a Bill for an Act to require not less than one-half of the States to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution’? Those words would be completely accurate, completely factual and completely dispassionate. People who do not realise the present impediment to an alteration of the Constitution might regard it as a very considerable impediment. Nevertheless it states the facts accurately as presented by this Bill. I suppose that one could say ‘to require not less than one-half of the States instead of the present two-thirds of the States to approve proposed laws to alter the Constitution’. That would be another accurate, factual and dispassionate statement. In any case the right honourable member’s objective would be achieved, I suppose, of complicating the ballot paper but I do not think he would be confusing the electors so much. The term in the Bill is ‘to facilitate alterations to the Constitution’. It is a simple, concise, accurate statement of the purpose of the Bill. I remind honourable gentlemen that the purpose of the Bill in this respect is to carry out recommendations made 15 years ago by three out of the four Liberal members, both Country Party members and all the Australian Labor Party members of the Constitutional Review

Committee. This is a long-standing proposal. It is one which was examined at length at the highest level. Frankly, I agree with the view on this matter of Sir Alexander Downer, the son of one of the founding fathers of the Constitution, Mr Justice Joske and the late Sir Neil O’Sullivan, a former Attorney-General of Australia. I was of the same view then. I have been of that view in all the intervening years. I believe that the Australian people are now entitled to express their view on this long-standing, well-founded, factual proposal.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McMahon’s amendment) stand part of the long title.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 51

Majority…… 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) proposed:

That the report be adopted.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Honourable J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) - by leave - proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution must be observed. I therefore direct that the division bells be rung. (The Bells having been rung) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is: ‘That this Bill be now read a third time’. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded.

Question put.

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 64

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3641

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1973-74

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 20 November (vide page 3560).

Second Schedule.

page 3641

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICES

Total proposed expenditure, $1,302,648,000.

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $36,837,000.

Department of the Navy

Proposed expenditure, $319,933,000.

Department of the Army

Proposed expenditure, $460,239,000.

Department of Air

Proposed expenditure, $352,284,000.

Department of Supply

Proposed expenditure, $129,457,000.

General Services

Proposed expenditure, $3,898,000.

Dr FORBES:
Barker

– In a matter of public importance which the Opposition raised earlier this month we criticised the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) for slashing defence expenditure. Incidentally, I make the point in the context of speaking to these estimates that the amount of reduction in defence expenditure was considerably greater than was admitted by the Government because the Government failed to take account of the amount by which it reduced defence expenditure in the second half of the financial year by the decisions it made immediately after coming into office. Nevertheless, we criticised the Government for the slashing of defence expenditure, for running down the defence forces, for cancelling or deferring vital equipment expenditures and, above all, for breaking a clear election promise to spend 3.5 per cent of the gross national product on defence.

When we raised this matter the Minister was aggrieved. He defended himself not only in the House during the discussion of the matter of public importance but he also went to great lengths to defend himself in a long speech at the Returned Services League Congress in Perth. He stated that he had not become the Minister for Defence for the purpose of dismantling this country’s defences. The Committee will recognise the Churchillian overtones in that phrase. He quoted at length and selectively from the strategic assessment looking 15 years into the future. Anyone who did not accept his assessment of what the defence forces required was living, in the past, according to the Minister, as he upbraided the members of the RSL Congress and anybody else who would criticise him. He even said:

I do not support a mindless process of determining defence policy by a reference to defence spending as a proportion of the gross national product.

Really, for a person, who had run around the country for some years before the last election in order to reassure Australians about the Australian Labor Party’s defence policy, to make such a statement before a body like the RSL Congress I believe needs no further comment from me. If any confirmation of the criticism we and others have made is required it is contained in the statement that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) on behalf of the Minister for Defence sneaked into the House yesterday. The Opposition had alleged that all sorts of decisions had been taken which were detrimental to our defence capability and which the Minister had not announced in his statement in August. We alleged that these decisions had played a large part in the decline of the morale of the defence forces; and we were right. The decisions have been dragged out of the Minister and are there for everyone to see. The decisions that the Minister did not announce go to the very heart of a serviceman’s basic motivation for service - his pride, his training and his search for excellence.

I turn now - unfortunately I have very little time - to the strategic assessment which the Minister uses so frequently to confound his critics. When I spoke on the discussion of a matter of public importance I was sceptical of the assessment. How dare I, said the Minister. How dare the RSL. How dare all the others who have been sceptical. I spoke, as I said then, from experience of the interpretation that can be put on these assessments and of how the Government’s interpretations defied the tenets of history, experience and common sense. The Minister was indignant. But I quote from Mr Clem Lloyd, the Minister’s ex-Press secretary, on this question. He said:

It is clear from Government statements that its new concern with continental defence and its confidence in a low threat environment is based substantially on the latest strategic estimates which came this year from Defence Department planners.

There is reason for some concern at the unduly heavy weight the Government is putting on the latest estimates.

There remains a danger with this sort of document that the strategic conclusions of the Government’s advisers are implied in a framework which is tailored essentially to existing Government policy and what the Government wants to hear. Something analogous occurs in other departmental documents such as Treasury, White Papers; you have to read between the lines.

Reiteration of base assertions such as ‘Our advisers tell us there is no threat for 15 years’ are too simplistic; they don’t do justice to the quality of the work contained in these documents where the inflections are expressed with much greater subtlety.

My fears and suspicions are confirmed by the Minister’s refusal, despite my request in writing, to permit me as Opposition spokesman on defence, to see the strategic assessment on a confidential basis. The fact is that the Government is not fair dinkum on defence. All this talk of the absence of threat is a smokescreen for a decision to save money from the defence vote for other purposes. In this respect the Coom’bs report is a revealing document. I do not have time to go into it now, but it clearly shows that this was the Government’s motive. The Government should be honest enough to come out and say so; to tell the people that it has chosen butter rather than guns and not pretend by hiding behind its interpretation of the strategic assessment that adequate defence is being provided when it is not.

I do not rest my case on the Coombs report alone. It rests equally on the fact that the. Government does not match its words with actions. The decisions it makes do not match the scenario it paints. Let us assume that its assessment of the strategic situation is correct and that there are no threats or situations on the horizon which will require the use of Australian forces in the next 10 to 15 years, that this prediction becomes more uncertain as we get further away from the present and that if the situation changes it will change slowly with plenty of time to adjust to the new circumstances. This, as I understand it, is the Government’s position. For reasons which we have outlined we would bitterly contest the Government’s position, but let us assume that it is correct. Let us assume too what is in fact the case, that the Government wishes to put a ceiling on defence expenditure, and indeed to slash it, in the interests of other expenditure programs. In those circumstances surely the logical course to take is to concentrate expenditure on the long lead items - items that cannot be obtained in a hurry and which may be needed as the future grows more uncertain - and at the same time to economise on the items with a short lead time, in particular, non-specialised manpower. This was the solution advocated by the Minister’s special adviser, Mr McGaurr But in fact the Government is doing the very opposite. It has hardly touched manpower and where it has, it has been manpower of a specialised variety. On the other hand, it has bitten deeply into the long lead equipment items - for example, DDLs and replacement for the Neptunes - so that the proportion of the defence vote spent on capital equipment has fallen to its lowest level ever. This is why we say that the Government is not fair dinkum, that it is motivated by ideological bias and not the proper defence of this nation.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

– I shall not debate the fact that the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes) quoted from inaccurate newspaper articles but I should like to make 3 points on some matters he has mentioned. Firstly, the new defence cuts, so termed by the newspapers and others, are not new at all. I was well aware of them. They have been filtering through for some time. Secondly, expenditure was greater in the second half of 1972-73. Although the abolition of conscription did save funds at the time, the increased money spent on pay and conditions more than took this up. The third thing is that the 15-year strategic basis, the no-threat period, has been widely misinterpreted. All we are saying is that in this period increased emphasis on pay and conditions is logical, plus the fact of a need for reassessment of the weapons area.

There are many important points one could develop in detail when reviewing the progress the Government has made in developing a coherent defence policy in little less than a year. Given .the regrettably short time for the estimates debate, it is impossible to do justice to more than a fraction of the Government’s moves in this area. The need for, and the potential to develop, a logical defence policy has in the past been clouded by the unfortunate rhetoric of the scare campaigns run by the Opposition when it was in government. This threat-mongering, linked with the occasional purchase of a few items of flashy hardware, was allowed to pass as an excuse for defence planning. In contrast, in the time since the Government came to power we have witnessed the beginning of a period of basic investigation and planning of defence needs and capabilities which is without precedent in the peacetime history of this nation.

I hope that we have seen the last of red threats and snap purchases of Fills, as a means to delude the public into thinking that an Australian Government was really concerned about the security of the nation. The cynicism with which these ploys were used in the past for crude electoral advantage is quite staggering, especially when it culminated in the tragic death of so many young Australians in Vietnam. In my opinion, one of the main things for which the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) is to be congratulated are the steps he has taken to restore sanity to the discussion of defence matters in Australia and thus create a situation where fear and deception can never again be used to mislead the Australian people for the narrow interests of a conservative government. I think the honourable member referred to the need to have strategic base locations published. That would be absolute nonsense and would be irresponsible. Such a document should not be made public. This Government is 100 per cent ahead of the previous Government in making available defence information to the Opposition.

This is, of course, an unspectacular thing and therefore an occurrence which is not recognised until it has been accomplished and has become part of history. Nevertheless, what the Minister for Defence has been able to achieve even in the last 10 months may be looked upon in future as a watershed, not just for defence policy and planning, but for Australian history in general. For the first time in many years we have a Government which recognises that the totality of this nation’s security lies in the complete integration of its foreign policy, defence planning, international trade; indeed all aspects of our relations with the outside world, lt is in this totality of how we see the outside world and how the outside world sees us, that the true security of Australia must be planned. I hope we will never again see a spectacle such as that where some Minister’s grave warning of the threat of Russian naval vessels in the Indian ocean whilst other Ministers of that very same government are engaged in trying to increase the volume of our trade with the same country. The same goes for China.

The overseas visits made by the Prims Minister (Mr Whitlam) have shown that we can open genuine friendships with countries once caricatured as aggressive enemies, whilst at the same time maintaining our links with our traditional friends. This has done much to destroy the old hysterias and set the background in which a more sane and rational analysis of Australia’s defence problems and requirements can take place. The calm and rational defence analyses instigated by the Minister for Defence and his explanation of these to the Australian public has done much to consolidate the awareness of these developments amongst the Australian people, although its long term importance has been overlooked. Of course, there are elements in the Australian community which react with uncertainty andfear to new ideas they do not understand. The old shibboleths die hard and some people will never see the way in which the new realities have left their preconceived ideas, formed a quarter of a century ago, far behind. However, I believe that the bulk of the Australian people are fast coming to see the difference between sane and logical argument, and hysterical outbursts.

It is obvious that the present Minister for Defence has been able to do a great deal to foster this new awareness amongst the Australian people. In two major statements to this House and many other speeches around the country he has explained not only the strategic situation but has done much to show the Australian people the means by which the current situation and possible future developments are assessed so that our defences can be rationally planned. In this regard the speech the Minister gave to the RSL National Conference of the 29th October has a significance beyond what was said since, for the first time, the Australian people were taken into the Government’s confidence on basic matters of defence planning. The hollow rhetoric which in the past has been delivered as an excuse for defence policy will never again be acceptable to Australian people, and future governments, of whatever colour, will have to explain far more fully the reasons which have led them to adopt defence policies. In future, only such carefully reasoned arguments will be acceptable to the Australian people who have, under this Government, witnessed for the first time what defence policy debate is really supposed to be like.

It is simply because defence policy must now be, and be seen to be, based on logical arguments developed from accurate informa tion that the Government is pushing ahead with more basic studies of defence requirements than has ever been the case in the past. To give them their due, the importance of logical and accurate information was something which the Opposition was slowly coming to realise in the last few years of the previous Government. The Central Studies Establishment of Supply is only one example of the machinery which was starting to provide much of the hard information needed for sound decision making in defence. However, the process had not gone much further than analysing and comparing different types of equipment. For these types of studies to be truly effective a coherent overall defence policy framework is needed, if only to determine what type of equipment is relevant.

To provide this necessary framework the Government commissioned a new paper on the strategic basis for defence policy making and has since initiated further work to refine thinking about the areas shown by this document to be crucial in the development of the nation’s defences in the future. For the first time a detailed investigation of the requirements for the defence of the continent itself has been ordered so that the force structure needed for the defence of the nation can be determined, should it ever come to be required. From this the Government will be able to estimate what capability will be required at different levels of threat, should they ever eventuate, the types of equipment, force structures and so on, which are most relevant to our basic security needs. With this knowledge the Government can plan for the type of forces we should be developing now, to give us the capability to expand at the rate required, and to have available the military skills needed if this nation should ever be unfortunate enough to need them. On the basis of such firm guidelines, ad hoc equipment decisions, such as that for the Fill or the development of a DDL, should be a thing of the past. The new situation is that we have to support what we put in the field.

As a further part of this effort to define the real defence priorities for national security, the Government has ordered other studies to find the most efficient locations around Australia for the various defence facilities required by the armed forces. This work will involve not only the assessment of purely military requirements but will also evaluate the need of units of the Services for industrial and technological support, ways to facilitate the closer joint operation of the Services, and the best possible access to amenities for servicemen and their families. Similarly, the Government has commissioned a study of the Citizen Military Forces as a basis for the development of policies which will allow this essential element of our armed forces again to play the significant role in national defence policy which it once did.

Of course, these studies will take time to complete. Much detailed work has yet to be done to complete them and further time will be needed to assess the implications of their findings and combine them all into a coherent reality strengthening the development of the nation’s security. This painstaking process is the inevitable consequence of the general paucity of the defence debates sponsored by past governments in this country. What is now significant is that for the first time an Australian Government is prepared to ask for, and listen to, cold, rational analysis of the defence needs of the nation. It is also significant that for the first time a Government is prepared to reveal these arguments to the public. What a stark contrast this is with the previous situation, where a degree of secrecy which was completely unnecessary totally shrouded defence debates in this country in a cloak of ignorance. I hope this situation has gone forever.

Certainly one thing which will make a return to past habits difficult, even under the most reactionary of administrations, is the Government’s decision announced in March this year, to endow 2 fellowships in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. The stimulation of public debate on defence policy in ways such as this will make it very hard for any future government to masquerade the emotionalism of fearmongering as sane defence analysis. Significantly, honourable members opposite should benefit from the Government’s determination to pursue rational, logical analysis in defence policy-making. Unlike them when they were in power, this Government has no fears of giving the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) or his relevant spokesman access to defence planning documents if they have the wit to request them. One can understand the way these men used secrecy-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– From what the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) says, if ever we get involved in a war we will certainly have lots of paper studies to throw at the enemy. But what we really want is an effective fighting force, which is what this Goverment is busily destroying. The Government obviously is frightened of a debate on this subject of defence. When we raised a matter of urgency some weeks ago, the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) was item No. 34 on the notice paper, and since then it has sunk to No. 45. It is quite clear that the Government does not wish to have that statement debated. All that the Government will allow us is a very brief time - I think that the debate will soon be gagged - to discuss the defence estimates.

This Government has achieved a remarkable anatomical feat of making itself a cross between a hen and an ostrich. Whenever danger threatens or’ a problem arises, the Government runs around like a headless hen, although at the same time it wants to bury its head in the sand like an ostrich. A few weeks ago in Perth the Minister for Defence quoted partially and misleadingly from a paper on the strategic basis. We must consider the strategic needs of this country. It is always the tactic of Treasuries and people opposed to effective defence preparations to ask: ‘What is the threat? Where does it come from? Itemise the threat. Then we can provide the defence.’ The trouble is that with the lead time of effective defence forces, threats arise much faster than the equipment, troops and trained manpower can be provided.

The Minister for Defence claims that he is able to look ahead 10 or 15 years. Let us look at what happened in 1931. Who then could possibly have foreseen that within 10 years Australia would have been at war with Germany, Italy and Japan? Certainly not the Australian Labor Party. As late as 1938 it was saying that references to preparation for war were hysterical propaganda. Now the Government is talking about the defence of the mainland. What a defeatist policy. If we have an effective defence policy the question of the defence of the Australian mainland will not arise. Surely the establishment of an effective defence policy should be the object of the Government. The Government talks about a period of strategic peace. I find it difficult to imagine any era which is likely to be more turbulent than the next 10 years or so. One thinks of the energy crisis and the problems which it will create. America is reliant on the Middle East for about 8 per cent of its oil. Japan and Western Europe are almost totally dependent on the Middle East for their oil. Australia produces about 60 per cent of our oil requirements, and for most of our other oil requirements we rely also on the Middle East.

The Arab countries - the countries in the Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries - are quite clearly prepared and determined to use their bargaining power ruthlessly. What will happen? Two or more” things seem obvious. Firstly, Japan is likely to be thrown into the arms of Russia through its likely dependence on Siberian oil. America, probably through the development of Alaskan oil, will be self sufficient for oil in a few years. Britain may well be a net oil exporter through North Sea oil by the early 1980s. What is likely to happen is that the OPEC countries - the Arab countries - will realise that there is a terminal date in relation to their effective ability to exploit the situation, and therefore the next 10 years are likely to be extremely turbulent.

If we had any sense we would be not only making extra defence preparations, but also encouraging in this country exploration for oil which the extraordinary policies and the economic primitivism of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) have virtually stopped in Australia. Also, it is quite possible that the Suez Canal will be opened within the next few years, and this will provide an opportunity for the Russian Black Sea fleet to operate in the Indian Ocean. This is a factor that we cannot or should not ignore, but the Government has effectively ignored it by delaying the development of the Cockburn Sound base in Western Australia which surely common sense dictates should not be delayed; it should, if possible, be speeded up.

In regard to equipment, in its notorious document entitled ‘Its Time’ which was pub:lished before the last election, the present Government promised that the defence forces would have excellent equipment. On 12 February this year - 2 months later - the Minister for Defence, at an industrial mobilisation course, said:

The Services may have to accept weapons systems they regard as less than satisfactory.

By Budget time in August, virtually all orders for new equipment were cancelled, and now we find from the admissions that have been very grudgingly dragged out of the Minister that not only has he cancelled all the long term orders for equipment, but also he is trying to delay purchasing equipment for which we are already committed. He is talking about trying to cut down on the purchase of light observation helicopters for the Army and on the orders for anti-submarine helicopters for the Navy. If the Government can cut down on our defence equipment it will do so. It will defer everything and cancel everything. This is equipment which our defence forces will need not immediately but which will make them effective forces in the 1980s. I repeat that that is a period into which neither this Minister nor any Minister can possibly foresee.

Then there is the question of our operational readiness and the efficiency of our forces on which our training depends. We have seen a cutback in the fuel allowance for the Navy and in the flying hours of aircraft. In regard to the Navy, the Minister for Defence in his recent statement said that the equipment in the Navy would not be below a level which seriously - I repeat, seriously - impaired the capability of the Navy. Apparently he expects that it will significantly impair the capability of the Navy. In fact, in an earlier statement the Minister gave a very good summing up of the sort of Navy that this Government is producing. In his ministerial statement in August he said:

The naval forces can assist in coping with any intrusions into territorial waters and fishing and resource zones.

That is a limited role for a proud and effective Navy if ever I have heard one. In regard to defence infrastructure, there is the question of our ability to be self reliant. Again, before and just after the last election the present Government was making brave words about our self reliance. What is it doing? It is cutting back on our dockyard labour and dockyard efficiency. It is also cutting back on armament production and is creating chaos in our aviation industry. The Government is seriously impairing our ability to look after ourselves and is making us more and more reliant on our overseas sources of supply. All this cannot but have an effect on the morale of the Services. It is a great tribute to their devotion to duty and their loyalty that they have not been more affected than they have been by the efforts of this Government.

I should like to turn very briefly to one other matter. The Minister for Defence is making a study of the integration of the defence group of departments. I support this concept but it has not yet been achieved. In the meantime the Service Boards retain their statutory responsibility for the running of their Services. But the Minister, who is their political head, is taking no part in this statutory responsibility. Until the change is made he should ensure that the existing system runs. When this change is made I hope it will be to convert the Department of Defence into a proper professional department. While the 3 Service Departments had statutory responsibility for the running of their own Services it was acceptable that the Department of Defence should merely be a co-ordinating body. If we transfer, as I believe we should, the statutory responsibility to that Department it must become a proper professional body. If we try just to graft onto a basically civil department small Service accretions it will do a great deal more damage to the morale of the Services than anything that this Government has yet achieved. I should like to give the Minister that warning, because it is a very serious matter.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence, Minister for the Navy, Minister for the Army and Minister for Air · Bass · ALP

– I have listened to 2 speeches by Opposition spokesmen on defence. It is quite clear that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer), has not bothered to look back over some of the speeches that he made in this place when his Party was in government. He raised the question of procurement and he referred specifically to the DDL program.

Mr Hamer:

– I raise a point of order. I did not mention DDL program.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not a point of order, as the honourable member is aware.

Mr BARNARD:

– The honourable member for Isaacs implied that we had cut back on defence procurement, and he specifically referred to the Royal Australian Navy. May I put it that way. 1 remember that on one occasion when I spoke in this chamber on the DDL program I referred to the enormous cost involved in obtaining 3 destroyers. At that time it would have cost this country $355m. When I expressed doubt about the ultimate cost I was supported by the honourable mem ber for Isaacs who expressed the same concern that I expressed. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who was about to rise to speak in this debate, coined what I thought at the time was a commendable phrase when he referred to the DDL program and said that he was reminded of a famous statement by the Duke of Wellington. He said that he hoped that the DDL program would frighten the enemy as much as the cost frightened him. Those honourable members were supporters of the then Government. They talked about the DDL program at that time and they agreed with the point of view that I had expressed on many occasions.

Let me say to those who talk about defence procurement that the Cabinet has determined that there will be a destroyer program but we are not satisfied and indeed we were not satisfied - the honourable member for Isaacs shared this concern, as I have already pointed out - that the Government had sufficient information and detail to allow us to go ahead with a program of such magnitude which would involve this country and indeed this Government in an expenditure of no less than 25 per cent of the defence vote for a number of years. In those circumstances how could a responsible government talk in terms of defence procurement? The Cabinet has determined that there will be a destroyer program, and investigations and inquiries are still proceeding. I hope to be able to make an announcement to this chamber some time in 1974.

I listened to the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes). There was nothing constructive in his speech, but that does not surprise me. It was completely destructive. One would have thought that the honourable member for Barker would have taken the opportunity to spell out what he would do if he had the responsibility of the Minister for Defence in a Liberal government. He did not make one statement in relation to what a Liberal government would do. Did he say how much a Liberal government would be prepared to spend in terms of the gross national product? Not at all. When this question was put to him he evaded the issue. Did he say whether a Liberal-Country Party government would reintroduce national service? Everyone recalls what was said in 1972 by the then Government, by those who are now sitting in Opposition. They said that it was essential for this country to retain national service. They said we would never be able to obtain or to raise in this country an all volunteer Army. This has been achieved.

Let me refer to some of the achievements of this Government in a short space of less than 12 months. I certainly would not need to reiterate all the attitudes that have been adopted and the actions that have been taken by this Government in relation to improved conditions for servicemen. But what we set out to do this year has largely been achieved. We set out to provide better conditions for those who are serving in the armed forces of this country on a volunteer basis. I do not have to recapitulate the improvements tonight. Every honourable member knows what has been done in terms of pay and allowances and in terms of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme, which is now probably the best scheme of its kind that could be found anywhere in the world. Let me remind those honourable members who now sit on the Opposition side how they procrastinated over this issue in the dying stages of the Parliament in 1972 when they could not make a decision. What did the honourable member for Barker do at that time? As usual, he ran for cover. At that time no new defence forces retirement benefits scheme was adopted. Within 3 weeks of attaining office I was able to reach a decision which was satisfactory in terms of the Jess Committee report and it has the complete support of the armed services in this country. Honourable members opposite had been in power for 23 years.

Let me come back to a point which I think is most relevant to this debate. I have already indicated to the chamber some of the achievements of the Government in the short period of about 11 months, including the improved conditions for servicemen. It was the policy of this Government to bring about those reforms in the first 12 months of its office and they have largely been achieved. I would be the last to deny that there are not some improvements that could yet be effected. I have referred recently to housing for servicemen. Everyone knows that there is a serious shortage of housing for servicemen, but we inherited this shortage from 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government. I would be a most competent Minister for Defence if I had been able to rectify in 11 months the problems relating to the housing shortage for ex-servicemen. Yet we hear about the attitude that is now adopted by this Opposition which had 23 years in which to provide adequate housing for servicemen. About 6,000 homes are required for servicemen who are waiting for accommodation, who urgently need it and who are entitled to it. This again is a legacy from the previous Government.

The honourable member for Barker referred to the strategic bases document. He had the temerity to say that he was not able to see the document. As a former member of a Ministry - not of a Cabinet; I do not think he ever reached that rank in the previous Government - the honourable member knows that in that document there would be statements based on security and therefore they could not be released. No one knows that better than the honourable member for Barker. But there are inferences in the document and indeed recommendations that can be made public.

No one would suggest that those who were responsible for drawing up the strategic bases document would propose that their findings and recommendations should not be made public. I sought to make them public. Indeed, that is what I did, not only through this Parliament but also by using a forum outside the Parliament. In doing so, I made it quite clear that this was not an assessment by the Government. The Government agreed with it. I agreed with it. As the honourable member for Barker knows, this assessment was arrived at by the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chiefs of Staff of the 3 Services and representatives of the Joint Intelligence Organisation. There was a committee that was representative not only of the Service departments but also of the Defence Department and the Joint Intelligence Organisation.

The honourable member for Barker knows that this document cannot be made public. But let us examine his statement. He is a former Minister for the Army. When he held that portfolio in the former Government, I had the responsibility as shadow Minister for Defence to put forward the point of view of the Opposition on defence matters. At that time, I was denied access to any defence information. No information was made available to me. When I became Minister for Defence, I took 2 actions in this respect. The first action was to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) was fully briefed on all of those matters on which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and I had been briefed, as the former Prime Minister had been briefed. This informations was made available to the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Barker. They were invited to be briefed and they accepted my invitation. The honourable member for Barker, the defence spokesman for the Opposition, was told that he would be able to have information from the Department of Defence at any time he requested it. He has been briefed by departmental officers. I invite honourable members to contrast my attitude and my actions in relation to informing members of the Opposition on these matters with the attitude of members of the Opposition who, when in government, denied to me and to the then Leader of the Opposition any information relating to security and defence matters.

Mr Bonnett:

– Are you closing the debate?

Mr BARNARD:

– You will have the opportunity to speak in a few moments.

Mr Sinclair:

– But you are closing the debate.

Mr Bonnett:

– There are plenty more who wish to speak.

Dr Forbes:

– A number of other members want to speak. You know that. The Government is going to gag the debate.

Mr Bonnett:

– You will gag it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order!

Mr BARNARD:

– We have heard speeches by the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Isaacs, on the Opposition side. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Isaacs is not ill-informed on some of these matters. I respect his judgment in many areas. When I was in Opposition, I found myself in agreement with the honourable member for Isaacs on a number of occasions. I cannot say the same with respect to the honourable member for Barker. Let me say to the Committee, in dealing with the strategic situation in this country, that the strategic bases document has been arrived at as a result of the considered judgment of those whose advice we are expected to take. I believe that their assessment has been proved to be correct. Indeed, as they have pointed out, we can look forward to a period of from 10 years to 15 years in which we can build up our resources in this country.

This brings me finally to the question of procurement. I have indicated already to the Committee that in our first year we have been concerned to improve the conditions of Service personnel in this country. That has been done. I have announced to the Parliament and to the public generally that, in contrast to the attitude of the former Government, the strength of the Australian Army will rise to 34,000 by 1976. I invite honourable members to compare that figure with the level of ‘22,000 personnel which was the peak of the former Government’s volunteer force in 1964. Our Army force of 34,000 will be based on a divisional structure with 6 battalions. We will achieve that divisional structure of 34,000 by 1976.

I turn to the other point of contradiction. Again this refers to a matter raised by the honourable member for Barker. What I wish to say relates to some of the points that I have put to the Returned Services League recently. What I said was that defence expenditure this year will exceed the expenditure by the previous Government in 1972-73. In money terms, we will be spending more. In terms of a proportion of the gross national product, the expenditure is slightly less. It is 2.9 per cent of GNP. But again I invite honourable members to contrast this expenditure with the 2.7 per cent of GNP that was spent by the former Government in 1964. It was not until the Vietnam involvement and the need for conscription, in the opinion of the former Government, that a need arose to increase the percentage of the gross national product devoted to defence.

Nothing was said by the honourable member for Barker that is deserving of reply. Let me conclude, then, by pointing out that we will now be looking to the question of procurement. As I indicated to the honourable member for Isaacs, we will be dealing with the question of the destroyer replacement. Other items of equipment, such as tanks, are involved. Our present tanks are more than 22 years old. Who is responsible for that situation - this Government or the former Government which now sits in Opposition? No decision was made on tanks by the former Government. I hope to be able to make a decision on this matter in the near future. Decisions will be made on essential items of procurement. But we will not be stampeded into purchasing equipment merely for the sake of spending the defence appropriations. We will ensure that, whatever equipment is purchased for our defence forces, that equipment will be purchased on the basis of the advice of those who are charged with the responsibility of conducting a complete and thorough investigation into our requirements.

Looking back over the record of this Government in its 11 months in office, I believe that there can be no basis for criticism by the Opposition or by the Australian people regarding our actions on defence matters. There certainly can be no criticism from those who are in the armed forces themselves. Their conditions have been improved immeasurably. They know this. They appreciate it. Our work in the next 12 months will be just as constructive. I am sure that, at the end of the next 12 months, we will be able to speak about the question of procurement and particularly those items of procurement which I believe are essential and necessary to provide an adequate defence force in this country.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

- Mr Chairman, I am sorry to say it but I really believe that this man must go. That was a deplorable effort. This man, the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) on behalf of the Labor Government has just provided a closure for us in the middle of a debate on the Defence estimates. This is a most unusual procedure. Normally the practice in an estimates debate is for the Minister, whose departmental estimates are under consideration, to speak at the end of the debate. He has unlimited time.

The Minister has accused my colleague, the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), a former Minister in the preceding Government and now the Opposition spokesman on defence matters, of not presenting a positive case. In 10 minutes? Goodness me! What earthly chance would anyone have of analysing effectively and totally either of the 2 ministerial defence statements that have been delivered, neither of which we have been given an opportunity to debate in this Parliament, and the Defence estimates, and then present a positive alternative Opposition defence program? Goodness me, Mr Chairman, what utter nonsense!

This man, who tells us that the statement he made yesterday is not really a statement on new policy, opened his statement by saying that the purpose of the statement was to acquaint honourable members with details that had not been previously announced. Does he mean that it is his view, or has he announced them before? He surely should make up his mind.

The problem, of course, is that the defence statement yesterday, coming on the Defence estimates which we are now debating, sets the stage for a further run down in Australia’s defence capacity. The Minister has begun setting the stage by announcing, supposedly in private, the fact that there is a strategic assessment which indicates that Australia will be under no forward defence threat in the foreseeable future, and certainly not for 15 years. Let me set the record straight as to the request by my colleague, the honourable member for Barker, for the disclosure of this forward strategic assessment. The Minister for Defence, in a letter to the honourable member on 14 November last, said:

After careful consideration of your request that I- and these are the words of the honourable member for Barker - make available to me- that is to Dr Forbes - for my perusal- that is for Dr Forbes’ perusal - the strategic assessment which was prepared by the Defence Committee at your request, together with the terms of your request’, I have decided that it is not appropriate-

The point is that the honourable member for Barker did not ask for this information to be made public. He asked only that he might have some opportunity to peruse this assessment. If one thinks this is unusual it is interesting to note that Rear Admiral Crabb found it necessary, in correspondence to Australian daily newspapers, to comment on the fact that this man, this Minister for Defence, disclosed in public statements confidential material - material which he now holds to be confidential. He would not disclose it to the honourable member for Barker but he was prepared to disclose in the Parliament and in speeches, specific statements from the strategic assessment which this man promulgated to the world at large. That, of itself, should be cause for this man’s resignation. I believe it is important that we realise that that strategic assessment is made on the basis that we do not know, but we have it on the say-so of the Minister for Defence, that there is no forward threat for the next 15 years.

I very briefly - I too have only 10 minutes, unlike the Minister for Defence, who has unlimited time - want to refer to an article by Professor Arthur Burns, on which I have commented now on 2 previous occasions in this Parliament, in the ‘Bulletin’ of 10 November in which he refers to the conflict which might emerge between China and Russia from the confrontation of 67 divisions on the ChinaSoviet border. He speaks of the greater necessity today than ever before to maintain out alliance with the United States, and yet the Minister for Defence, this man, suggests that there is no forward defence threat. Professor Burns says that he believes that the world is now in a greater state of instability than it has been over the last decade.

We all know the tragedy of the Middle East war, only a fortnight ago. The Minister for Defence said, in a way in which many of us on this side of the House believe might well have been worthy of him had he been able to substantiate his undertaking, that Australia would be prepared to send a peace-keeping force to the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations. With the steps that this Government has taken to reduce the defensive capacity of our armed forces, I seriously question how soon any armed detachment could be sent from this country, and how able that armed detachment would be to undertake the tasks allotted to it. That is certainly a state, that has resulted from the 1 1 months of maladministration of the present Minister for Defence.

Let us look at the general field of defence procurement. We are told by the Minister for Defence that that is something he will worry about. I want to come back to it because it is one of the things that concern me in the new statement made yesterday about the things that he is now not going to do. In an article that was written some months ago on Australian defence policy under Labor, Dr Robert J. O’Neill, a senior fellow in international relations and head of the Strategic and Defence Study Centre in the Research School of Pacific Studies of the Australian National University, Canberra, said:

The state of development of Australian technology does place severe limitations on the extent to which local manufacture can be carried into practice. Australia is not likely to design, develop and produce a high performance fighter-interceptor, a fighterbomber, a heavy transport aircraft, a cruiser, a submarine, a major missile system, many of the essential sophisticated components of early warning systems . . and so on . . . Consequently Australia is still going to have to purchase many essential items from abroad and accept the accompanying disadvantages.

The point of that is that there is a recognition by those who are proficient in this field that we will have to purchase from abroad a considerable number of those goods and items that we need in a sophistically advanced navy, army and air force. To manufacture them here - I am one who hopes that we may be able to do so, in spite of Dr O’Neill’s statement - it will be necessary for a long lead time. Yet the major consequence of this Government’s defence statements and this Minister’s defence decisions is that we are now in a position where that lead time has been extended beyond the bounds of reasonableness and beyond the bounds where we might well be able to rely on the procurement program at a time when that equipment might have to be used for defensive purposes on behalf of Australia. In other words, the decisions taken by this Government and the decisions that are covered by these Defence estimates seriously prejudice our nation’s ability to undertake anything of a defence campaign if such should be necessary within anything less than the 15 years on which the Minister has committed himself.

I want to say 2 things. It is extraordinarily difficult in 10 minutes to cover all that one wants to say. The first is that I am horrified to see that there is in the estimates of the Department of the Navy a cut-back on oil fuel requirements of nearly one-third. I know that there has been some change in the character of the oil used by Her Majesty’s Australian ships, but we were told yesterday that the steaming time of the Australian naval vessels will be reduced by 20 per cent. We see in the estimates that there is a reduction of nearly $900,000 out of a $2.5m budget in the amount of money provided for furnace fuel oil, other automotive fuels, diesel fuel and so on for the propulsion of naval vessels. In other words, financial decisions are being taken which, supplementing the positive decisions - the negative decisions, I should call them - by the Minister, will very seriously impair the ability of the Australian Navy to undertake any sort of reasonable patrol operation in the Indian Ocean or anywhere around the great expanse of Australian coastline. Similarly, in the naval air units, the army air units and the Royal Australian Air Force establishments there is a serious cut-back in flying hours at a time when it is more and more essential that the men operating the equipment should be technically able to handle it and should be operationally proficient.

The tragedy of this Minister is that he sees his task, not as the maintenance of an Australian defence component but as the elimination of it. Because he persists in his pomposity, the only solution for the defence of Australia is that this man should resign as a protest at what his Government has done to him, if he seriously believes in the statement he made tonight that he is advancing Australia’s defence cause instead of destroying it.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) read portion of a letter which I wrote to the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes). I want to read that letter to the Committee, because the Deputy Leader of the Country Party read only portion of it to distort the facts. The letter reads:

Dear Dr Forbes,

After careful consideration of your request that I make available to me for my perusal the strategic assessment which was prepared by the Defence Committee at your request, together with the terms of your request’, I have decided that it is not appropriate to give you access to the Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1973 or the terms of my request to the Defence Committee. You will appreciate that the Strategic Basis is not merely an intelligence assessment but includes frank discussion of Australian interest in relation to other countries and policy advice from officials to the Government.

I have often stressed that I regard it as important that Opposition spokesmen have ‘access to all relevant intelligence information’. Therefore I invite you to arrange through my office to be briefed on specific intelligence matters or on the intelligence background to the Strategic Assessment in general by the Chairman of the National Intelligence Committee, Mr Gordon Jockel.

Of course, it is not surprising that the Deputy Leader of the Country Party refused and intentionally omitted to add the last part of the letter which invites the Opposition spokesman to be briefed by the Director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation on that part of the strategic basis document which is relevant to the assessment arrived at by the Committee and, indeed, relating to the period in which it says there is not likely to be a threat to this country. It is still open to the honourable member for Barker to accept my invitation.

Motion (by Mr Hansen) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The question is that the question be now put. All those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘ayes’ have it. Is a division required? Ring the bells. (The bells being rung) -

Mr McVeigh:

– I take a point of order. Is it in order for a member of a Party which has insufficient numbers to carry on a debate, when there is a long list of speakers on this side-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I suggest that he spend the time while the bells are ringing reading the Standing Orders.

Mr McVeigh:

– You did not hear me make my point, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 49

Majority . . . .11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (commencement).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3

The Treasurer may issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and apply for the services specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, in respect of the year ending on 30th June, 1974, the sum of Two thousand, two hundred and fifty-one million, seven hundred and ninety-two thousand dollars.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

This amendment, and the proposed amendment to clause 4 which has been circulated in my name, are consequential. They are purely technical amendments. The infantile demonstration which has just takenplace on the Opposition side astonished me. This amendment is purely consequential upon the passing recently of the Supply Act (No. 3) 1973-74. I might say that when a similar situation arose when I was the shadow Treasurer and when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) was the Treasurer a similar proposition went through in a matter of seconds. I should have thought that the same courtesy would be extended to me.

Mr MacKellar:

– You cannot expect any courtesy - not after tonight.

Mr CREAN:

– I expect it sometimes from some people.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– As the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has pointed out, this Bill is consequential upon the Supply Bill (No. 3) 1973-74 the passage of which through this chamber, the Treasurer will remember, received the co-operation of the Opposition. At that time I expressed some reservations as to why the measure had to be introduced and about what we considered to be an unwarranted action on the Government’s part in requiring such a measure to be brought forward. But I do not intend to canvass the same ground again. The views of the Opposition were made clear at the time the Supply Bill (No. 3) was debated.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4.

The sums authorised by Section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 1) 1973-74 and by Section 3 of this Act to be issued out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, amounting, as appears by the First Schedule to this Act, in the aggregate to the sum of Three thousand, eight hundred and eight million, one hundred and forty thousand dollars are appropriated, and shall be deemed to have been appropriated, as from the 1st July, 1973, for the services expressed in the Second Schedule to this Act in respect of the financial year that commenced on that date.

Amendment (by Mr Crean) agreed to:

After ‘1973-74’, insert ‘, by section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 3) 1973-74’.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

First schedule.

Amendment (by Mr Crean) agreed to:

Omit the Schedule, insert the following Schedule: -

First schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I seek leave of the House to move the third reading forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Wentworth:

– No!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages of the Bill being passed without delay.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, I think that this is a complete abuse of the forms of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Wentworth:

– The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his’ seat. He does not have the call. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye.

Government supporters - Aye!

Mr SPEAKER:

– To the contrary, no.

Mr Wentworth:

– No! Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar. The honourable member should always wait until he gets the call.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was caught once tonight. It is good of you, Mr Speaker. You were not in the House-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority . . . .10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

Debate interrupted.

page 3655

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 15 minutes past 10 o’clock p.m., and in accordance with the order of the House of 1 March, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is, that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the noes have it. Order! The House will resume the proceedings at the point at which they were interrupted.

page 3655

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1973-74

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The motion for the adjournment of the House was negatived.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, I am sorry, the motion was:

That the motion be put forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The motion was:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry, Sir. The motion was-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! He did not move any motion. He required it. I call the Treasurer.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, you put the question and you gave it to the noes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If the honourable gentleman does not resume his seat and obey the rulings of the Chair, I will name him.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am right on this. You put the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question was put, that the House do now adjourn.

Mr Wentworth:

– No, Sir. The question that was put was that the question be put forthwith and I asked-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Wentworth:

– I ask-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. You are very disruptive indeed. You are trying to disrupt the proceedings of the House.

Mr Wentworth:

– No Sir. I am right on this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! You are not right.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am right.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! You are not right. I warn the honourable member for Mackellar to resume his seat. The Speaker is on his feet, and the honourable member will resume his seat. Order! It being 15 minutes past 10 o’clock, in accordance with the order of the House of 1 March, I proposed the question that the House do now adjourn. I call the Treasurer.

Motion (by Mr Crean) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If members of the Opposition continue to try to disrupt the pro ceedings of the House I will take the appropriate action. The question is: That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

- Mr Speaker, I feel compelled at this moment to make a few remarks-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 60

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3657

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1973-74

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 August (vide page 166), on motion by Mr Crean.

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 Crean) read a third time.

page 3657

ADJOURNMENT

Army Bands - Political Parties

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– I am sorry to see that the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) has left the chamber. I had warned him that I would be raising a matter which I had discussed with him. One of the many actions that has been taken by the Minister for Defence in his capacity as Minister for the Army, in order to keep his expenditure within the amount of money he was allotted in the Budget, was the disbanding of four Regulary Army corps bands. One of those scheduled for oblivion is the Signals Corps band at Kapooka where the 1st Recruit Training Battalion is located. The decision has brought immediate, prolonged and adverse reaction in the Riverina. I doubt if I have ever seen during my parliamentary career a decision of this sort that has been so unpopular and to which there has been such sustained opposition. Already I have received 2,500 signatures to a petition asking the Minister for the Army to reconsider the decision. I have passed them on to the Minister. I have informed the Minister’s staff that another 1,400 signatures have been obtained. They will also be passed to the Minister as soon as I receive them in the post. The House may wonder why this action, which to some honourable members may not seem to be a major matter, has brought forward such a violent reaction from my constituents. I think the answer is twofold. First, as I have said already, Kapooka is the location of the Army’s 1st Recruit Training Battalion. Both military and civilian personnel in the area have asked how a new recruit can be trained to march and to drill without a military band. I thank the Minister for returning to the chamber. Certainly the band need not be large. Inceed, the Kapooka band is not large, but to my way of thinking it is an essential adjunctto a training base. Once a week a passing-out parade is held. This parade is usually attended by many of the parents and friends of those who have completed their training. These people come from all over the continent and their presence is good for the morale of the trainees. The absence of a band would virtually mean the end of these parades.

The other important part played by the Regular Army’s Signal Corps band is its activities in the nearby city of Wagga Wagga. The band has played an active part in the civic life of the city. It plays there during the beating of the retreat, during marches through the city and during many civic occasions when Wagga is visited by distinguished visitors. Recently I witnessed an excellent demonstration of marching, counter-marching and quick and slow-marching during the visit to the city by the State Minister for Youth and Welfare. Last week I went to the Minister for Defence and told him of the high regard in which the band was held, and of the vacuum that would be created if the band was disbanded. He promised to review the decision and I have no doubt that he intends to carry out this promise. Unfortunately, actions taken previous to this promise have continued to roll on. First, the Minister had tabled for him yesterday a speech which included the words:

It has been decided to disband four of the Regular Army’s corps bands at Puckapunyal, Kapooka, Singleton and Casula.

Second, I understand that notices of posting have been received already by 23 out of 25 members of the band. So it is urgent for the Minister to act quickly in reviewing this decision.

When I saw the Minister last week he said that the abolition of a number of bands had been recommended to him by the Army Board. I pointed out to him that this was not so. What the Army Board had in effect said was that if the defence vote was to be reduced from 3.5 per cent of the gross national product to less than 3 per cent of GNP, one of the many ways in which such a reduction could be achieved was by getting rid of the bands. The Minister pointed out that the disbandment of the 4 bands marked out for the axe would save about $1.5m, but Kapooka, with only about 25 bandsmen, can only be costing between about $200,000 and $300,000 a year. To my way of thinking the Army and the public are getting good value for their money from the band at Kapooka. May I make one final point. The Government has made a point of saying that it believes in decentralisation. This is very much decentralisation, yet this band is being abolished and its members are being posted to larger centres. The Government does not intend to abolish the band at the Royal Military College at Duntroon, so why should it abolish the band at Kapooka? After all it would be much easier to form a city band in Canberra than it would be to do so in Wagga Wagga. Finally, in the light of the thousands of signatures requesting a review of this decision, not only from the public but also from the Returned Soldiers League and leading citizens who are, after all, also voters, I ask the Minister to reverse this decision.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence, Minister for the Navy, Minister for the Army, Minister for Air and Minister for Supply · ALP

– I did not know that the honourable member intended to raise this matter tonight.

Mr Fairbairn:

– I sent 2 messages to the Minister, one this morning and one this afternoon.

Mr BARNARD:

– I am sorry; I thought that the honourable member would do that and I accept his word that he did do so. Unfortunately the information was not passed on to me. I can understand the honourable member’s concern about the decision. He spoke to me last week about the decision that had been made to disband the’ Kapooka band. As I indicated in the statement tabled in this Parliament yesterday, even considering the number of bands that it has been decided to disband, those that are left will still be costing the country $2.5m a year. I am sure that the honourable member, as a former Minister for Defence, would appreciate that this is a very significant and large expenditure. The decision to disband these bands was not made lightly. As I promised the honourable member, I have instituted inquiries to see whether the decision to disband the Kapooka band should stand or whether some alternative arrangements can be made. Again I must point out to the honourable member that despite what he said a few moments ago, it is true that one of the recommendations that was made to me, not by the Army Board but at a general meeting of the Chiefs of Staff in which I participated when these questions were under consideration, was that these bands should be disbanded. As far as I am aware this was a unanimous decision of the Defence Committee, that is, of the Chiefs of Staff.

The recommendation came to me, and naturally I was concerned because I agree with the honourable member that the bands make a very significant contribution. I am aware of the great prestige which the bands of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force have been able to build up as a result of their public appearances. The bands are sought very widely. Very often I have come under criticism because I have had to refuse a request for the appearance of a band or sometimes because I have acceded to a request for the appearance of a band. I agree with the honourable member that the bands make a significant contribution in this respect. Certainly, when a band has been in existence for a long time there is bound to be some resentment when it is disbanded. But I must reiterate what I said a few minutes ago, that it was the unanimous recommendation of the Defence Committee that a certain number of bands should be disbanded. I deviated from that recommendation in regard to 2 bands. One was the Army band at Townsville.

Mr Fairbairn:

– But surely it was only a recommendation because of the lack of money.

Mr BARNARD:

– No, this is not true. It may be partly true. But I am sure that the Defence Committee itself had considered the increasing cost of maintaining so many bands in the defence forces. As I said, I made a departure in regard to 2 bands. One was the Army band at Townsville, and the other was the Royal Australian Air Force band at Richmond. I did this for reasons which I think in regard to the Army band at Townsville, are obvious. That band is the only one in an area in which there is a significant number of troops, and Townsville is a great distance from Brisbane. Therefore, I believed that that band should be retained. The Royal Australian Air Force band at Richmond was only the second air force band in that State, and for this reason I believed that it should be retained. The decision was made as a result of what I believe was a correct assessment of the situation.

I assured the honourable member for Farrer that I would have the question of the disbandment of the Kapooka band looked at. Alternative arrangements were suggested to me. They were that the Royal Military College band could be sent to Kapooka once a month, if necessary, for passing out parades. It could also be made available on other occasions when it was required in the area. It would also be available when required on special occasions in the Wagga area. This decision was made as a result of the first investigation. I regret that I have to inform the honourable member that unless there is a very good reason why one should reverse the decision in relation to the Kapooka band, that decision will have to stand. However, I indicated to the honourable member that I would have the matter further examined, and I will do so. I am sure he will appreciate that over the last 3 or 4 days I have not had an opportunity to follow up this matter and some other matters that may be regarded by honourable members as being urgent.

I conclude by saying that I agree with the honourable member that he is entitled to express some concern about this matter. It is not an easy decision to make but I must repeat that it was a recommendation from the Defence Committee, and I am sure that the decision would have been made sooner or later whether or not there had been any reduction in funds. The sum of $2.5m is a significant amount to spend on bands in Australia. However, I appreciate the honourable member’s concern because I know that the Kapooka band has a very good reputation and, like all other Service bands, I believe that it would have done much to improve public relations between members of the defence forces and the civilian population generally. I assure the honourable member once again that I will have the matter further examined and I will let him know the result of that examination as soon as possible.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

– In the few minutes available to me on the adjournment debate I want to speak on matters relating to economics and business. Prior to last Saturday’s New South Wales election the Australian Country Party candidate for the seat of South Coast inserted in a local newspaper an advertisement which stated:

Render your protest. The Labor Government in Canberra is crippling your district, your job, your future and your business.

Significantly, as at 20 November 1973 he had received 1,371 votes out of 20,358 voters en rolled. But he was only repeating the statements of his leaders, and tonight I wish to take the opportunity to rebut some of those statements. I do not wish to raise again in any great detail th: debate on the revaluations and the tariff cuts that the Country Party opposed so much, but I would point out that in opposing tariff cuts the Country Party was cutting directly against the rural sector, as the cost of tariff subsidisation is borne largely by the exporting sector.

The benefits of revaluation were stressed in the Treasury publication entitled “The Australian Economy’ of August 1973. It stated:

While a strong growth in exports adds to gross domestic product and therefore to the potential for a higher standard of living, this potential will not be realised if the receipts from export sales - which involve a transfer of Australian resources to the rest of the world - are not used to finance a higher level of imported supplies. In short, production for export is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

Continuing current account surpluses when reserves are already excessive are not only wasteful of resources that could be used to meet internal demands. By adding to domestic liquidity they can, in conjunction with capital inflow, pose considerable problems for ‘ economic management.

That Australia had a high level of international reserves compared with other countries, even in 1970, is clearly illustrated by referring to a table which was prepared for me by the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service. It shows Australian international reserves as a proportion of annual imports. The annual average for the 5 years ending June 1969 was 46 per cent. It was 43 per cent for the year ending June 1970, 60 per cent for the year ending June 1971, 99 per cent for the year ending June 1972, and 114 per cent for the year ending June 1973. This sort of excess of reserves and the effect that it had has recently been enlarged on by Dr Porter. Reference to this matter was made in a debate in this House last week. But even in May 1973 Dr Porter estimated that this excessiveness led to a total speculative inflow of $ 1,500m for the period from January 1971 to September 1972. This implies that about 43 per cent of net apparent capital inflow during this period was based on speculation and that the Australian dollar would have to be revalued.

I return to the statement by the Country Party candidate in the seat of South Coast at last Saturday’s New South Wales election. The fact is that the business and rural sectors are undergoing an almost unprecedented boom with record profit levels. Gloom mongering and fear have become the only tactic of Opposition parties, and their negative approach is somewhat summed up by their advocacy of a no’ vote to both the prices and incomes referendums. Recently I asked the Parliamen tary Library to prepare a list of the profits of companies by sectors.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 11 o’clock the House stands adjourned until 10 o’clock tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3661

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Turtles (Question No. 1297)

Dr Cairns:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

Export of live turtles is prohibited unless the consent of the Minister for Customs and Excise is first obtained. As is the case with all Australian native fauna, permission is usually only granted for export to approved zoos and scientific institutions.

At the present time the export of turtle meat is not subject to the provisions of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations but I understand that State legislation prevents the taking of turtles, except under licence in Queensland and Western Australia and an ordinance provides a similar control in respect of Northern Territorial waters. I gather that no licences have been issued for some time.

I should mention that the export of turtle meat is subject to the provisions of the Exports (Fish) Regulations administered by the Department of Primary Industry; this is essentially a quality control.

A close watch of developments in this area is being maintained with a view to establishing whether any additional controls under the Customs Act are justified.

Australian Council for the Arts (Question No. 1305)

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Staff of the Australian Council for the Arts at 31 October 1973 numbered 47 permanent, 15 temporary, and 11 exempt public servants.

I am informed that on 1 December 1972 the comparative figures were 28, 3 and 1 respectively.

Airports: Noise Levels (Question No. 978)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 550 which I asked on 16 May 1973.

Mr Charles Jones:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

The answer to question No. 550 was published in Hansard on 22 October 1973.

Melbourne’s Second Jetport (Question No. 1198)

Mr Lynch:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. When does the Minister expect the inquiry into the location of Melbourne’s second jetport to be completed.
  2. What is the nature and extent of the environmental studies being undertaken.
  3. Has he made arrangements for the conduct of public hearings in conjunction with the inquiry.
  4. If so, what arrangements have been made.
  5. At what stage are consultations between the Department of Civil Aviation and the State Planning Authority, and what decisions have been reached.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. After taking into account that locating a second airline airport to serve Melbourne is but part of an inquiry covering expected developments to the south-east of Melbourne, as a whole, it is not possible to give a worthwhile indication as to when the inquiry may be completed.
  2. It is understood that environment and conservation have been taken into account throughout the studies of the State Planning Advisory Committee in this area. In addition it is understood that before a final decision is made as to which particular airport site is preferred the State Planning Advisory Council will require an Environmental Impact Statement on each of the alternatives. (3 and 4) In the event of consideration being given the actual establishment of a second airline airport to serve Melbourne, as an Australian Government project, then public hearings primarily dealing with the environmental impact would be arranged in accordance with the recently announced policy of this Government. Any question as to whether the State Planning Advisory Council has in mind to conduct public hearings related to their total plans for that area should be addressed to the Victorian Government.
  3. Several sites have been identified to the north and north-east of Westernport Bay suitable for the establishment of a second airline airport as a result of consultations between the State Planning Advisory Committee and the Department of Civil Aviation. Current studies, co-ordinated by the State Planning Advisory Committee, are expected to lead to a firm recommendation for consideration by the State Planning Advisory Council.

Aircraft Pilots: Salaries (Question No. 1290)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation the following question, upon notice:

  1. What are the (a) guaranteed annual salaries and (b) average annual salaries of Australian domestic airline Captains and First Officers employed by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries on Boeing 727, DC9, F28 and F27 aircraft.
  2. What are the respective contributions by the pilots and the airlines to the existing superanuation fund and what are the benefits to the pilots.
  3. What are the respective contributions by the airlines and pilots to loss of licence insurance for pilots.
  4. What are the details of the new superannuation claim by the Australian Federation of Airline Pilots and what would such a claim cost the airlines annually.
  5. How many AFAP members are involved.
  6. If the AFAP claim is granted would an increase in fares be necessary; if so, to what extent.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Contribution by Pilot- 10 per cent of guaranteed annual salary until age 55.

Contribution by Airlines - 10 per cent until the completion of 22 years of service; thereafter 7½ per cent to age 55.

Benefits

Up to 10 years own contributions plus interest at 5 per cent. 10 years and up to the completion of 22 years benefits range from one times average salary over the last 5 years up to 4.95 times average salary over the last 5 years.

At the end of 22 years’ service the benefit is funded and from then on this funded amount accrues compound interest at the rate of 5 per cent; in addition the Pilot’s contributions and TAA’s contributions after 22 years of service accrue compound interest at 5 per cent per annum and are added to the funded amount.

Examples of the lump sum benefits in the present scheme at age 55

B727 Captain: Commenced in 1946, retiring in 1976 at age 60 - $86,000 of which his own contributions amount to $13,000 plus interest.

Commenced in 1946, retiring in 1978 at age 60 - $103,000 of which his own contributions amount to $16,000 plus interest.

Commenced in 1946, retiring in 1980 at age 60 - $124,000 of which his own contributions amount to $20,000 plus interest.

Commenced in 1946, retiring in 1982 at age 60 - $148,000 of which his own contributions amount to $25,000 plus interest.

Pilots in TAA and ATI now have a retiring age of 60 and the lump sum mentioned above includes the additional interest on the lump sum between age 55 and 60.

Pilots in TAA and Ansett Airlines (excluding the ATI subsidiaries) under the present seniority system could be expected to proceed to 727 captaincy.

  1. Airlines contribute $180 per annum towards Loss of Licence Insurance for Pilots. For this amount Pilots can purchase Loss of Licence Insurance for $36,000. Pilots need not contribute anything but under the scheme run by the AFAP they can contribute an additional amount, depending on age, to get an additional benefit.

The cost of Loss of Licence Insurance for all TAA and ATI Pilots is $218,700 per annum.

  1. New claim by AFAP - pertinent details: Contributions by Pilot to be reduced from 10 per cent to7½ per cent after 10 years, with a further reduction from 7½ per cent to 5 per cent after 20 years.

Benefits

At 10 years of service 2.82 times salary increasing to 8.46 times salary at 30 years of service.

Death benefit - new clause

All Pilots shall be entitled to the sum of$100,000 in the event of death, whether on duty or not, and such amount to be additional to entitlement under the superannuation scheme and Workers’ Compensation, where the latter is applicable. Where the interest rate is to apply for resignation or discharge other than benefits mentioned above, the interest rate is to be 7 per cent.

Cost to Airlines of claim

Estimate that for future serving Pilots the additional cost will be $1,000,000 per annum. In order to meet the cost in relation to all past service of existing Pilots the cost over a reasonable future period of, say, 10 or 15 years could well exceed $1,000,000 per annum. Therefore it is foreseeable that the claims could cost an additional $2,000,000 per annum. These figures relate only to TAA. The effect on ATI is unknown but the total annual cost would not be less than in TAA’s case and probably greater as ATI employ more Pilots.

  1. 1,215 Pilots in TAA and ATI.
  2. On present salaries it is estimated that present fare levels would need to be increased from1½ per cent to 2 per cent. However, this could increase and would depend on the future level of salaries for Pilots.

Canberra: Doctors Practising (Question No. 1314)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many doctors were practising in Canberra as at 2 December 1972.
  2. How many doctors were practising in Canberra as at 2 November 1973.
  3. How many doctors left practice in Canberra during this period.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The term ‘doctors practising in Canberra’ has been taken to exclude doctors employed whole-time by hospitals, by the Australian National University and by the Armed Services. It has also been taken to exclude locums and the staff of the Australian Department of Health except those employed as Community Medical Practitioners.

It is difficult to arrive at precise figures for the number of doctors practicising in Canberra at any particular date.

The numbers given in (1) and (2) below have been obtained by taking the numbers of doctors on the lists of visiting medical officers at the Canberra and Woden Hospitals current as at June 1972 and June 1973, with modifications based on the definition above and registration records.

So far as it is practicable to ascertain, the answers to the particular questions asked by the right honourable member are as follows:

174

185

5, one of whom retired and one of whom died.

Parliamentary Staff Establishments: Non-Government Parties (Question No. 874)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn toreports that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition requires a female adviser who can type and that the Deputy Leader has stated that the Government has refused to provide the Opposition with adequate staff.
  2. What staff were provided to Opposition Party Members under the Government of which the present Deputy Leader was a Minister, and what was the classification in each case.
  3. What staff are available to Members of the present Opposition, and what is the classification in each case.
  4. What requests by the Opposition for additional staff have been rejected.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Details of staff approved by the former Government for the non-Government parties as at 1 December 1972 are shown in Table 1 below.
  3. The present Government, following representations from the non-Government parties, approved a major increase and upgrading in the staff available to them. A total number of positions was approved viz. nine clerical, three Press Secretaries and fourteen stenographic positions for the Liberal Party and four clerical, one Press Secretary and six stenographic positions for the Country, Party leaving each Leader to allocate the positions within his party. The Government also approved three stenographic positions for use by the Liberal Party Executive and one for use by the Country Party Executive. It upgraded the top position on the staff of the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party.

The end result has been that the staff available to non-government parlies has been increased from 29 under the previous Government to 45 under the present Government. Within these totals the number of senior positions (i.e. third division) has been increased from 10 to 19.

The classification of staff available to the nonGovernment parties has also been upgraded. In addition to the positions listed on the attached table, six positions are available to the Rt. Honourable William McMahon and the Rt. Honourable J. G. Gorton, as former Prime Ministers.

The approved staff establishments for nonGovernment parties as at 1 November 1973 are as shown in Table 2.

  1. Requests for staff, in addition to the total positions allocated, that have been rejected are:

Requested by the Leader of the Opposition: One extra Sessional Clerk position for each Opposition Whip (allowance for these positions had been made in the total positions allocated); one extra stenographer position for each Office-holder;

One extra Electorate Secretary for each Opposition Whip torelease two stenographic positions for re-allocation within the party; one Research Officer position at Clerk, Class 11 salary ($13991-14484) in lieu of one Ministerial Officer Grade 1 ($8886-9548) position for the Leader’s staff.

The Leader also suggested that the top position on his own staff should be at the same classification, Ministerial Officer Grade 5 ($19085), as the top position on my own staff and that the top position on the staff of the Deputy Leader should be at Ministerial Officer Grade 4 ($17300) in line with that on the Deputy Prime Minister’s staff.

Requested by the Leader of the Country Parly: One extra Sessional Clerk position for the Country Party Whip. At the time this request was refused, I approved a full time stenographic position for use by the Party Executive.

Requested by, the former Leader of the Democratic Labor Party: One Research Officer position for the Leader’s staff; one extra Steno-Secretary position for the Leader’s staff.

(Question No. 915)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the (a) name, (b) status and (c) salary of each person employed (i) as private staff, (ii) as a seconded departmental officer, or (iii) in any other category who is attached to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and each Minister.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I have already in answer to earlier questions (House of Representatives Hansard 13 March 1973 page 534, Senate Hansard 10 April 1973 page 992, House of Representatives Hansard 22 May 1973 page 2471 and 23 August 1973 pages 397-398), given information on this subject. I have said that once staff appointments had been completed, I would make available to the House details of the staff employed by each Minister and by Office-holders of non-Government parties.

The Government, in conjunction with the Public Service Board, recently reviewed Ministerial staff arrangements introducing a new Ministerial Officer category, Grades 5 to 1, in lieu of Private Secretary, Adviser and Research Officer categories. Grade 5 is the senior position on the Prime Minister’s staff and Grade 4 the senior position on the Deputy Prime Minister’s staff.

The basic personal staff establishment approved for other Ministers is as stated in answers to earlier questions viz:

Two Ministerial Officer positions (each to be at a different level within the Grades 3, 2 and 1)

One Press Secretary

Two Assistant Private Secretaries

One Steno-Secreary, Grade 1

One Secretary/Typist

In addition each Minister, in consultation with the Permanent Head of his Department, may, appoint (at the remaining Ministerial Officer grade available) a Departmental Liaison Officer who remains on Departmental establishment.

A Minister may choose to have one Ministerial Officer, Grade 3, 2 or 1 in lieu of a Press Secretary.

Any variation from this basic establishment requires my personal approval.

Ministers have now completed their staff appointments. I have been informed that details in respect of my own private staff and of the private staff of each Minister are as listed in Table 1 below. Departmental Liaison Officers are shown in Table 2. The details are as at 1 November 1973 and are as up to date as possible. There are continuing changes in staff and the House will be aware for example, that since that date I have appointed Mr Young to my own staff while Mr Bilney has transferred to the Foreign Minister’s staff.

The Ministerial Officer categories have replaced the Private Secretary, Adviser and Research Officer categories on the private staff of Office-holders of non-Government parties also.

As in the case of Ministers, Office-holders may choose to have one Ministerial Officer at the highest Grade appropriate to his staff establishment, in lieu of a Press Secretary.

The former Opposition and non-Government parties had 29 Staff positions in total. The present Opposition and non-Government parties have, in total, approval for 45 positions - an increase of 55 per cent. This compares more than favourably with the increase in Ministerial staff establishments.

I have been informed that details of the private staff of the Office-holders of the Opposition and non-Government parties as at 1 November 1973 are as listed in Table 3 below.

Salaries are listed in Table 4.

page 3666

TABLE 1

page 3666

PRIME MINISTER

page 3666

THE HON. E. G. WHITLAM, Q.C., MP

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 5- Dr P. Wilenski** (Principal Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr J. Spigelman (Senior Adviser) (Class 11).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr G. Bilney** (Private Secretary) (Class 11).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Ms E. Reid (Class 9) (Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mr M. Delaney** (Private Secretary) (Class 7).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Ms C. Summerhayes (Personal Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr E. Williams. Public Relations Officer- Mr E. Walsh.

Media Secretary - Mr D. White.

Clerk, Class 5- Ms L. Dwyer**.

Clerk, Class 4 - Ms B. Stuart.

Clerk, Class 4 - Ms N. Thompson**.

Assistant Private Secretary - Ms P. Logan**.

Assistant Private Secretary - Ms L. Lake.

Clerk/Stenographer - Ms R. Ferguson**.

Overseeer (Telephones) - Ms C. J. Robinson**.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Ms D. Darlcw.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Ms A. Jones**.

Typist, Grade 2- Ms H. Reid.

Typist, Grade 1- Ms C. J. Bowtell.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3666

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, MINISTER FOR THE NAVY, MINISTER FOR THE ARMY, MINISTER FOR AIR

page 3666

THE HON. L. H. BARNARD, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 4 - Mr A. D. McGaurr (Special Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr J. T. C. Brassil** (Senior Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr A. M. Koch** (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr D. Woolner (Class 9)** (Research Adviser).

Press Secretary - Mr H. Holgate.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs G. James.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss C. Came**.

Secretary/Typist - Mrs J. Tyson.

Steno-Secretary Grade 1 - Mrs M. Crighton**.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs H. Koziol.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss M. Rice.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

MINISTER FOR OVERSEAS TRADE THE HONOURABLE JIM CAIRNS, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr P. J. Cairns, (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mrs J. Child (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr B. Headland (Adviser).

Press Secretary - Mr A. D. Kennedy.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss M. Burgess.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss K. N. Murray.

Secretary-Typist - Miss M. Taylor.**

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs G. M. Goedecke.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY MR BILL HAYDEN,M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - P. McGuiness (Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Miss G. Raby** (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mrs N. Burns (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Ms M. Stoyles.

Secretary-Typist - Ms M. Mayhew.**

Secretary-Typist - Miss L. D. Holgate.**

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Ms C. G. Gleeson.**

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss A. C. Baker.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

TREASURER

page 3667

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CREAN, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr R. Q. Freney** (Private Secretary).

Clerk, Class 5- Miss Helen Scott.

Press Secretary - Mr D. A. Reeves.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. Fisher.

Secretary-Typist - Mrs M. Purtell.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss J. Ayres.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

page 3667

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE LIONEL MURPHY, Q.C

Classification and Occupant:

Scientific Adviser (Part time) - Professor H. Messel.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Miss M. Barron (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr G. Negus

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss P. Mullins.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss M. Minter.

Secretary-Typist- Ms K. J. Scott.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss R. Y. Shields.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss G. P. Sheedy.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND MINISTER ASSISTING THE PRIME MINISTER

page 3667

SENATOR THE HON. DON WILLESEE, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr G. T. Briot (Senior Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr J. Tilemann** (Private Secretary) (Class 9).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr D. J. Mitchell** (Private Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss G. Hurditch**.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss S. Cochrane.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss S. Radici.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

MINISTER FOR THE MEDIA

SENATOR THE HON. DOUGLAS McCLELLAND

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr P. Martin (Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mr B. Stewart (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Miss H. Styles (Media Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. Beckett**.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs P. Baker.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss C. Burkhardt.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss H. McGill.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3667

MINISTER FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTER FOR NORTHERN TERRITORY

page 3667

THE HON. REX PATTERSON, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr J. H. Kelly.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Miss B. McLennan (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr D. A. Falconer.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss K. Baker.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss G. L. Meredith.

Secretary-Typist - Miss S. Pym.

page 3667

MINISTER FOR REPATRIATION AND MINISTER ASSISTING THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

page 3667

SENATOR THE HON. R. BISHOP

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr B. B. Coburn** (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr C Sumner (Research Officer).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. M. Sutherland.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss E. M. Molloy**.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs A. Passlow.

Secretary-Typist - Mrs A. N. Willemse.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR SERVICES AND PROPERTY

page 3668

THE HON. F. M. DALY, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Miss P. M. Larkey** (Private Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary- Ms B. A. Williams.

Assistant Private Secretary - Ms D. B. Brown.

Secretary Typist - Ms M. Thompson.

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Ms R. I. Mildwater.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR LABOUR

page 3668

THE HON. CLYDE R. CAMERON, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr J. C. Bannon (Class 9) (Research Officer).

Special Adviser- Mr G. W. Ford.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mr M. R. Cockburn (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary- Mrs D. S. Dowse.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs P. T. Wright.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs H. M. Lea.

Secretary-Typist- Mrs N. I. Rau.

Steno-secretary, Grade -1 - Miss A. Davoli**.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

page 3668

THE HON. TOM UREN, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr R. Dempsey (Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr H. O’Neill (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary- Mr H. Stein.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss V. James.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. Gill**.

Secretary-Typist- Miss D. Talty.

Steno-secretary, Grade 1- Mrs M. Hardin**.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION

page 3668

THE HON. C. K. JONES, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr P. Garrad** (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary- Mr J. C. Ford.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss E. Hogan.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs S. Barrett.

Secretary-Typist - Mrs C. Jones.

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs L. A. Johnson.

Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION

page 3668

THE HONOURABLE KIM E. BEAZLEY,M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr D. Sligar** (Research Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mr F. Kirwan (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr K. M. Henrick.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss P. Long.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss H. Hughan.

Secretary-Typist- Miss S. Hibbert.**

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss G. Henderson.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR TOURISM AND RECREATION AND MINISTER ASSISTING THE TREASURER

page 3668

THE HONOURABLE F. E. STEWART, M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr A. P. Dettre.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr K. I. McDowall** (Private Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss M. V. Almond.**

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss A. Hasney.

Secretary-Typist - Mrs V. N. Monk.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss A. M. Coady.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss A. L. Harley.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS SENATOR THE HONOURABLE J. L. CAVANAGH

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr D. R. Cavanagh (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr R. F. Whiddon (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mrs L. J. Thomas (Personal Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss C. D. Olszak.**

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs J. Jordan.**

Secretary-Typist - Miss L. Drury.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss P. Rutter.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

page 3668

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE K. S. WRIEDT

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr D. J. Thomas (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr B. Norwood** (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr T. Connors.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. M. Cooper.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss J. Saunders.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

page 3668

MINISTER FOR THE CAPITAL TERRITORY

page 3668

THE HON. GORDON BRYANT, E.D., M.P

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr W. J. King ** (Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mrs G. King (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr R. White.

Press Secretary - Mr I. Higgins.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs P. Kruger.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs L. Silvester.

Secretary-Typist - Mr R. Scott.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs S. Penman.

**Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR MINERALS AND ENERGY

THE HON. R. F. X. CONNOR, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr J. Ryan ** (Private Secretary) (Class 9).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr C. Bellchambers** (Research Officer) (Class 7).

Fuel Technologist - Mr N. Jennings.**

Press Secretary - Mr R. Sorby.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. Pettifer.**

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs J. White.

Secretary-Typist- Mrs J. O’Shea.

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Miss R. S. Kennedy.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

THE HON. A. J. GRASSBY, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3 - Mr W. J. Gibbons** (Private Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. Moore.**

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss C. Ridgwell.**

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss J. Garnock.**

Secretary-Typist- Mrs E. C. Valetti.

Typist, Grade 2- Mrs E. Preis.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND MINISTER FOR WORKS

THE HON. LES JOHNSON, M P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mrs L. Scott (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr J. Enders** (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr D. A. Halpin.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs P. E. Storrie.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss Y. L, Camilleri.**

Secretary-Typist- Mrs P. Trott.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs A. Carmody.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss C. J. Walsh.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR SECONDARY INDUSTRY AND MINISTER FOR SUPPLY

THE HONOURABLE KEP ENDERBY, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr J. W. A. Iremonger (Research Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mrs V. A. Lavington (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Ms H. E. Shepherd (Research Adviser).

Press Secretary - Mr P. W. Dougherty.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs K. M. O’Connor.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss B. A. Bender.

Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 - Miss J. L. Orr.**

Secretary-Typist - Mrs B. Higgs.

Secretary-Typist - Mrs M. Charchalis.

Secretary-Typist - Miss J. Flynn.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

POSTMASTER-GENERAL

THE HON. LIONEL F. BOWEN,M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr W. A. Brooker.**

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr V. W. Ryan** (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mr N. Pittman.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss M. Kerwick.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss B. L. Kilby.

Secretary-Typist - Miss H. M. McPherson.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs G. A. Goode.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR HEALTH

THE HON. D. N. EVERINGHAM, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr C J. Bailey ** (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary,- Mr P. J.Gurry.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss P. J. Watson.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss G. M. Palmer.**

Secretary-Typist - Miss G. Tarlington.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss M. A. Hoey.

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

THE HON. MOSS CASS, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Dr P. Ellyard** (Research Adviser).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mr H. Rosenbloom (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary- Mr P. Blazey.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss C. Barron.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs E. Bird.

Secretary-Typist - Miss D. Brown.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss C. J. Eaves

** Seconded Departmental Officer.

MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL TERRITORIES

THE HON. W. L. MORRISON, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Dr T. J. Conlon, (Class 9) (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Miss P. P. Warn (Private Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs M. A. Finch.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs J. M. MacLean.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss D. T. Baxter.

Secretary-Typist - Miss S. Pearce.

TABLE 2

DEPARTMENTAL LIAISON OFFICERS AS AT 1 NOVEMBER, 1973

Minister to whom attached, Departmental Officer and Classification:

Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. J. P. Wagner** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.

Overseas Trade, Mr J. Douglas**- Class 7.

Customs and Excise, Mr T. Wright** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.

Media, Mr W. Rigby** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.

Urban and Regional Development, Mr J. Mant** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 3.

Transport and Civil Aviation, Mr G. Spence** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 3; Mr I. Richardson** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 3.

Education, Mr G. C. Hirst**- Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.

Capital Territory, Mr G. Monaghan** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 1.

Immigration, Mr P. Job** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 1.

Postmaster-General, Mr W. K. C. Daly**- Ministerial Officer, Grade 3.

Environment and Conservation, Mr G. McAlpine** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.

Science & External Territories, Mr M. Bourke** - Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.

Seconded Departmental Officer

TABLE 3

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION THE RIGHT HONOURABLE B. M. SNEDDEN, Q.C., M.P.

Classification and occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Dr J. Best (Class 11) (Senior Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr J. Knight** (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1- Mr W. R. Shepherd.

Press Secretary - Mr J. Fraser.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss J. Thompson.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss A. Fox.

Secretary-Typist - Miss Helen Trucano.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss J. Gubbins.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Vacant. Mr J. Goodfellow** (Class 7) (Supernumerary).

** Seconded Departmental Officer

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION THE HONOURABLE P. R. LYNCH, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr A. O. Hay (Private Secretary).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Miss B. M. Anderson (Research Officer).

Press Secretary - Mr K. Randell.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss D. McCarthy.

Assistant Private Secretary; - Miss E. Seller.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss S. Moloney.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE

SENATOR R. G. WITHERS

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr R. Maher (Private Secretary)

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Miss J. Longmuir**.

Press Secretary - Mrs N. Driver.

Assistant Private Secretary - Mrs M. Taylor.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss K. Porter.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE

SENATOR THE HON. I. J. GREENWOOD, Q.C.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr J. Shier (Advisor).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Miss P. O’Connor (Private Secretary).

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss D. Stafford.

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs V. Williams.**

** Seconded Departmental Officer

LEADER OF THE COUNTRY PARTY

THE RT. HON. J. D. ANTHONY, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr R. B. Coombs (Research Officer).

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 - Mrs B. Carroll (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr B. Virtue.

Assistant Private Secretary - Miss A. P. Daly.

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Miss B. Melville.**

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs J. Wein.

** Seconded Departmental Officer

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE COUNTRY PARTY

THE HON. I. M. SINCLAIR, M.P.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2 - Mr A. Lynch (Private Secretary).

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Miss Betty Shelton.

LEADER OF THE COUNTRY PARTY IN THE SENATE

SENATOR THE HON. T. C. DRAKEBROCKMAN, D.F.C.

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr E. J. Clark (Private Secretary).

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Miss B. Daly.

LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY

SENATOR F. P. McMANUS

Classification and Occupant:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr D. W. Strangman** (Private Secretary).

Press Secretary - Mr K. C. Davis.

Secretary-Typist - Miss B. Barry.

** Seconded Departmental Officer

LIBERAL PARTY EXECUTIVE

Classification and Occupant:

Steno-secretary, Grade 1 - Miss C. Hill.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs C. Lusher.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss S. Kellock.

COUNTRY PARTY EXECUTIVE

Classification and Occupant:

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Miss P. O’Connor (Personal classification$5607).

Four Corners’ Programs (Question No. 811)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. What criteria are used by the ABC to determine the content and balance of the program ‘Four Corners’.
  2. Following the 45 minute eulogy of Mr J. Mundey, written and directed by Caroline Jones, on the weekend 18-19 August 1973, will the Minister suggest to the Commission that efforts be made to restore this program to its former high level of objective reporting.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. ‘Four Corners’ produced in accordance with the Commission’s guide-lines for Public Affairs Programs, details of which have previously been made public. The subjects dealt with in the program are selected on the basis of public interest.
  2. As I have stated previously, it is the policy of this Government to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has programming independence. It is for the Commission to decide whether any action needs to be taken in relation to ‘Four Corners’ or any other ABC program.

Tuggeranong Station (Question No. 903)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital

Territory, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that workmen are causing damage to livestock and property on Tuggeranong Station which is being surveyed for the development of the new town of Tuggeranong.
  2. Is it also a fact that the lessee of the property has had two stock horses, one valued at $1,000 shot dead, has lost three cows, and that at least forty sheep have been shot in the hindquarters.
  3. If the position is as stated, is the lessee of the property regarded as a trespasser and are these actions deliberately designed to frighten the McCormack family off Tuggeranong.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I am advised by the Minister for Services and Property that surveys are being carried out on Tuggeranong Station, but inquiries from survey Party leaders reveal no knowledge of damage to livestock or other property on the station. I understand that no complaints have been made to the Survey Branch of the Department of Services and Property by Mr McCormack.
  2. See Hansard, 23.10.73, page 2573.

Canberra: Traffic Accidents (Question No. 794)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital

Territory, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of the street intersections in Canberra where most accidents have occurred during the last 18 months.
  2. What were the dates on which the intersections were completed, and the number of accidents at each intersection since the time of completion.
  3. Have there been any complaints to the Department alleging that danger existed at these intersections because of faulty design and lack of traffic lights during the last 18 months; if so, have these complaints been investigated and reported on.
  4. Has he ensured that recommendations for improved warning and traffic lights are being implemented.
  5. How many alterations has the Department and the National Capital Development Commission effected since 2 December 1972.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The schedule below contains a list of the 10 street intersections in Canberra which had the highest number of traffic accidents in 1972. Statistics for 1973 will be computed after 31.12.73.
  2. Most of these intersections have been in existence for many years. The table provides the dates when the present traffic control facilities at each intersection were completed. The number of accidents at each intersection is given for the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. Detailed traffic accident records are not available for earlier years. (3), (4) and (5) During the last eighteen months there have been no complaints about the intersections listed and no major reconstruction or installation of traffic lights has taken place at these intersections since December 1972.

National Conference of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Advisory Counsellors (Question No. 933)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 68 which I asked on 28 February 1973.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

The answer to question No. 68 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on pages 2961-2965.

Pensioners: Rail Concessions (Question No. 1150)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. With reference to Question No. 975 (Hansard 15 October 1973 page 2128), how many pensioners in each State, who are enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service and are thereby eligible for the 50 per cent concession provided by the Australian Government Railways to undertake interstate travel, took advantage of the concession in 1972-73.
  2. What was the cost of providing this concession in 1972-73.
  3. What is the estimated annual cost of extending eligibility for this concession to all pensioners.
  4. How many pensioners in each State and in each category, for whom the 50 per cent concession provided by the Australian National Shipping Line applies, took advantage of the concession in 1972-73.
  5. What is the exact nature of this concession.
  6. What was the cost of providing this concession in 1972-73 for each category of pensioner.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The exact number of pensioners who took advantage of the 50 per cent fare concession available over Commonwealth Railways is not known as no records are maintained as to the number of journeys each pensioner undertakes in a year.

Subject to this qualification, the total numberof pensioner-journeys may be taken as a guide. A total of 12,550 pensioner-journeys were made over Commonwealth Railways at concession rates during 1972- 73. Tickets issued indicate that these journeys originated as follows:

The above figures should not be taken as an accurate record as to the number of pensioners from each State availing themselves of the concession available over Commonwealth Railways. The South Australian and Western Australian figures are inflated by the large number of pensioners from other States who preferred to finalise their booking for travel over Commonwealth Railways upon their arrival in Adelaide and Perth.

  1. The cost of providing this concession in 1972-73 was $120,069.00.
  2. It is not possible to estimate the annual cost of extending the eligibility for this concession to all pensioners as this would depend on the frequency with which pensioners would use the concession during the year.
  3. From 14 November 1972, the date of inception of the pensioner concession scheme, until 30 September 1973, 2,843 pensioners took advantage of the

SO per cent reduction provided by the Austraiian National Line.

Records concerning categories and States of origin of pensioners granted the concession are not kept by the Line.

  1. All T.P.I.’s, blind soldiers, limbless soldiers, blind civilians and their escorts are eligible for the 50 per cent concession on ANL passenger vessel fares.

All persons who are entitled to receive the benefits of the Pensioners Medical Service can obtain a similar concession on production of a Commonwealth Medical Entitlement card (PMS2) at the time of booking. >(6) The total cost of providing the concession in the period from 14 November 1972 until 30 September 1973 was $45,364.

Inflation (Question No. 925)

Mr Graham:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will he set out in table form the annual rate of inflation, side by side with the growth figure as a percentage of the Gross National Product for the financial years 1946-47 to 1972-73.
  2. Will he assess the annual rate of inflation, as at the present time, and estimate, at this current rate, its impact upon the estimated Gross National Product value in 1973-74.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. The following table shows, since 1948-49, annual percentage changes in gross domestic product at current and constant prices, in the so-called implicit price deflator and in the consumer price index. Comparable series are not available prior to 1948-49.

Movements in the gross domestic products at constant prices are commonly used as a measure of economic growth although such a measure is subject to a number of limitations (see, for example, the recent Treasury Economic Paper entitled ‘Economic Growth: Is it Worth Having?’).

The implicit price deflator is often used as a broad indicator of price change for total gross domestic product. It is derived by dividing figures of gross domestic product at current prices by corresponding figures at constant prices. It is not, of course, a price index in the true sense.

The consumer price index, on the other hand, is designed to measure variations in prices of goods and services representing a high proportion of the expenditures of wage-earner households.

  1. Formerly entitled gross national product. (b) Derived from series of estimates at average 1953-54 prices, (c) Derived from series of estimates at average 1959-60 prices. (d) Derived from series of estimates at average 1966-67 prices.

    1. The figures published by the Statistician for the September quarter 1973 show an increase over the corresponding quarter in the previous year of 10.6 per cent in the Consumer Price Index. The implicit price deflator for gross domestic product is not yet available for the September quarter.

Aboriginal Pastoral Companies (Question No. 1182)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 787.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 787 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on pages 2966-2967.

Aboriginal Reserves: Exploration Licences (Question No. 1183)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 788.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 788 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on page 2967.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1184)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 789.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 789 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on page 2967.

Land Purchases for Aboriginals (Question No. 1185)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 790.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 790 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on page 2967.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1187)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 807.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 807 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on page 2968.

Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (Question No. 1188)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 1000.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 1000 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on page 2969.

Child Welfare: Case of Nola Brown (Question No. 1189)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my question No. 1001.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

The answer to question No. 1001 appeared in Hansard of 7 November 1973 on page 2969.

State Railway Systems (Qustion No. 1257)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is the Australian Government negotiating for the purchase or takeover of the State railway systems.
  2. If so, which States are involved in discussions with the Australian Government.
  3. What stage have negotiations reached with each State.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. On 8 February the Prime Minister wrote to all the State Premiers indicating the Australian Government’s willingness to accept responsibility for the railways of any State that is prepared to offer them, subject to mutually satisfactory terms.
  2. South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales agreed to enter discussions on the matter without commitment.
  3. Discussions with South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are well under way. Discussions with New South Wales are expected to commence at the end of this month. As a result of these discussions an interim report will be made pointing out the main issues involved, to enable the two Governments involved to make a decision in principle on whether to proceed with negotiations for a transfer.

The report on the South Australian railways is expected to be completed shortly, the report on the Tasmanian Government railways should be completed before the end of the year and the report on the Western Australian Government railways should be completed shortly after that.

Shipbuilding: Australian National Line Orders (Question No. 1258)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is the Australian National Line negotiating for the building of any ships overseas.
  2. If so (a) with what companies are the negotiations taking place, (b) what trade will the ships enter, and (c) what tonnage are the proposed ships.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Inquiries have been made of several European shipyards to seek indicative prices and delivery dates for large bulk carriers. Offers have been received from the following shipyards:

Blohm and Voss A.G., Hamburg

Rheinstal Nordseewerke, Emden

Gotaverken A/B, Gothenburg.

The Line has been authorised to enter into negotiations with Gotaverken A/B for the building of two ships:

  1. the Australia/ Japan ore trade
  2. 121,250 metric tons deadweight.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 November 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731121_reps_28_hor87/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant