House of Representatives
12 December 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 1 1 .30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4581

PRIVILEGE

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

Mr Speaker, I should like to raise a matter of privilege which has suddenly arisen. As the House is aware, I am acting for the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns). I have been advised that yesterday the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd sent a telex message addressed to the Honourable J. F. Cairns, Minister for Overseas Trade, Canberra. However, the company inadvertently used the wrong telex number. Instead of sending the message to telex number 62018 it sent it to telex number 62108. I am informed that on that basis, the telex was received by Nationwide News Pty Ltd trading as the News’, Parliament House, Canberra. In this morning’s ‘Australian’ appears an article headed ‘Mining Jobs in Jeopardy’ which refers to the telex which was addressed to the Minister for Overseas Trade and gives an exact quote from it. I understand also that the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd realised its mistake when it received a telephone call from a Mr Peter Terry of the ‘Australian’. Mr Terry did not reveal the source of his information, but the company knew at that stage that the telex had been received by the wrong person. The company was further informed that other sections of the Press had knowledge of this telex, but they acted in a strictly ethical manner and did not use the information. It appears clear that the telex was intercepted and used. I submit that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. I move:

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– There seems to be a rather strange pattern building up in relation to the reference of matters to the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges. Over the years that I have seen these matters arise it has been customary for the honourable member who asserts that there has been a breach of privilege to raise the matter and for the Speaker then to investigate to establish whether there is a prima facie breach of privilege. It has been the custom of the House, upon the receipt of a statement by the Speaker that the matter constitutes a prima facie breach, to refer it on that basis to the Privileges Committee.

Dr Everingham:

– You can move in that way. You can move however you like.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Minister for Health is not succeeding in his portfolio so he should not try to help me on a matter of privilege. If the process continues of a matter ‘being moved forthwith - I am putting this is in a proper way and not in a manner critical of the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) - the House at a finger snap’s notice must decide by vote whether to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. I think that the House is entitled to have time to consider the matter. It is entitled to have a report from the Speaker, presumably based on some advice from the Clerks, before the motion is voted upon. For instance, the Minister said that the ‘Australian’ newspaper intercepted the telex message; ‘but, from the way in which he put it in the House, it did not intercept the telex message; the telex message was sent to it. If an error was made -

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

– It was not sent to it; it was addressed to the Minister.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Minister told the House that it was sent to the wrong telex number. It was sent to the wrong telex number and therefore it came into the possession of the newspaper. But to say that it was intercepted is quite clearly a misuse of the word ‘intercepted’. The next point is that my understanding of the way in which privilege operates is that a breach of privilege occurs if there is an attempt to influence a member of Parliament in the discharge of his duties as a member of Parliament, and consequently it could operate in respect of a Minister as Minister. Was this an attempt to influence the Minister in the discharge of his duties? We have not heard enough about the matter. We do not even know what the telex message was, what was quoted from it in the article referred to, the way in which it was used, or how it was put to the disadvantage of the Minister.

When I rose to speak in order to raise this point, I realised that what I am saying is reinforced by the action of the Government because, when I raised the point on the sheer question of the protection of the privilege of this House, I found an array of interjections from the Government side which made it appear as though the Government was approaching this matter on a party political basis. One thing to which I will not contribute in this House and to which my Party will not contribute in this House-

Mr Lionel Bowen - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear that I have not consulted any other members of the Government. The matter was brought to my attention only at 11 o’clock and I have had no opportunity to discuss it with anybody. I ask that the suggestion that’ it is party political be withdrawn. (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr SNEDDEN:

– To continue, there is one thing to which 1 and my Party will not contribute, and that is the misuse of the privilege of this Parliament for any party political purpose. If the honourable gentleman wishes this matter to be pursued further, I suggest to him that he give notice to us and, as it now becomes apparent, to his own side. He has now said that he has not discussed it with anybody. Is the whole House to vote on this matter now in total ignorance? I do not intend to vote on it in ignorance. I suggest that the honourable gentleman should simply raise this matter as a matter of privilege. The House will be sitting tomorrow; or, for that matter, it can be dealt with this afternoon. But at this stage we will refuse to vote to send the matter to the Privileges Committee, if it is forced to a vote now. If on the other hand, it is left until we have had the opportunity to examine it, then we may support the motion.

Mr Daly:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to standing order 95 - Privilege - which reads:

Any Member may rise at any time to speak upon a matter of privilege suddenly arising, and he shall be prepared to move, without notice, a motion declaring that a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed, or referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges; but if the matter is raised in committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall leave the Chair on an order to report progress.

I think that standing order was there in the 23 years that the Leader of the Opposition’s Party was on this side of the Parliament. He never sought to change it before. Therefore the subterfuge by which he seeks to escape voting on this matter this morning will not stand up against that standing order.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, may I read to the House standing order 96, which follows the standing order that the Leader of the House read out?

A matter of privilege at any time arising shall, until disposed of, or unless the debate on a motion thereon is adjourned, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question: Provided that precedence over other business shall not be given to any motion if, in the opinion of the Speaker, a prima facie case of breach of privilege has not been made out or the matter has not been raised at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Daly:

– It has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Wentworth:

– Quite. I am raising this matter because of my recollection of what happened on a previous occasion when, Mr Speaker, if I may say so with respect, I think you were in error, as Hansard will show, because precedence should not be given to this motion unless you have ruled - as you are entitled to rule - that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. Unless you are prepared to rule that, this discussion should not proceed. If you are prepared to rule in that way, as you are, of course, entitled to rule, the matter must go forward. But I raise this matter because I think it is of some importance by reason of the fact that you, Mr Speaker, if I might say so with respect, while in the Chair made an error on this very point when a matter of this kind was last before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! In regard to the previous matter about which the honourable member is speaking, I think it is true that every member of the House knew what the business was all about. It related to an article that appeared in a Melbourne newspaper. I think every member of the House was quite aware of the business before the House. That is the reason I made the decision that I announced at that time. Having looked over the matter now before the House and having received advice from my Clerks, I think it might be advisable if I were to give this matter consideration before I bring down a decision on it. Possibly this matter could be dealt with at a later hour this day rather than wait 24 hours before doing so, which would not be desirable since there is likely to be a closure of the Parliament tomorrow. We might be able to deal with this matter this afternoon when I have reached a decision. I think that would be satisfactory to the Postmaster-General.

Mr Snedden:

Mr Speaker, I welcome your ruling and give an undertaking that this side of the House will do all possible to facilitate the consideration of the matter.

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

– I tender the relevant newspaper article and the telex message to which it relates.

page 4583

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 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 Cooke, Mr Corbett, MrDrury, Mr Katter, Mr Killen, 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 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 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 Bourchier, Sir John Cramer, Dr Forbes, Mr McLeay, Mr McVeigh, Mr Reynolds, Mr Viner, Mr Wallis, Mr Wentworth 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 Ashley-Brown, Sir John Cramer, Mr Luchetti, Mr Mulder and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions 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 intellegent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing internationalconcern 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 reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connor, Mr Adermann, Mr Fox and Mr Innes.

Petitions received.

Australian 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 referedum or poll held for the purpose of deciding the future of a national anthem.

Andyour petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fisher and Mr King.

Petitions received.

Australian 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 rather than any of the alternatives that have been suggested.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government not to change Australia’s National Anthem without a total vote of the Australian people at a referendum to select an anthem from ‘God Save The Queen’ and the suggested alternatives to it.

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

Petition received.

Sand Mining: Pines Forest Plantation

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

The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division ofFlinders respectfully showeth:

That they oppose the decision to extract sand from the Pines Forest Plantation area of the City of Frankston;

That the extraction will have detrimental effects on the lives of nearly 7,000 children and5,000 adults who live in the area - one which is already chronically deprived of community facilities; and

That the Parliament declare the area a parkland reserve and move for its development as a scenic, passive recreation area for the people of Flinders, Victoria and the whole Australian nation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will support the move to oppose the decision to extract sand from the Pines Forest Plantation.

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

Petition received.

Use of Title ‘Commonwealth’

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

The humble petition of we the signatories hereto (electors of the Division of Bennelong) respectfully showeth:

That we, the said signatories, deplore and are opposed to the present Government’s policy of discontinuing the use of the word ‘Commonwealth’ from the printed currency of the Commonwealth of Australia and also from the official titles of many Federal Government Departments being of the opinion that, in this context, such discontinuance of the word ‘Commonwealth’ is contrary to the expressed intention and import of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and therefore should not be implemented unless by the mandate of the Australian people ascertained by Referendum as provided for in Section 128 of the Constitution.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should consider the foregoing in the light of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and should refrain from further erosion of the use of the term ‘Commonwealth’ in reference to organs of the Commonwealth Government and/or its printed currency and further that the House should ensure that the title ‘Commonwealth’ is restored where such title may have already been deleted from the style and name of any organ of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, thereby causing the nomenclature of such organ or organs to be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Sir John Cramer.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives assembled, Canberra.

The bumble petition of residents of Australia respectfully shows:

The red kangaroo, largest marsupial in the world, has through shooting for commerce become extinct or rare in many areas where it was once prolific. All scientific evidence points to this decimation of numbers, which is clear evidence that State Governments are unable to control commercial shooting within their boundaries.

The people of Australia do not wish to subsidize the kangaroo industry, through taxation, in paying for the control measures which it calls for. We find the industry repugnant, unnecessary, and benefits but a few people in this country, whereas live kangaroos in their natural habitat, through their value as tourist attractions are economically far more profitable to our economy and to us aesthetically.

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

  1. Maintain the ban on the export of products made from kangaroos. 2 Encourage State Governments to have any necessary culling of wild animals carried out by their own fauna officers.
  2. Establish large sanctuaries in the habitat of the Red and other species of kangaroo. (This would benefit all wildlife in those areas).
  3. Provide for scientific research into populations of kangaroos and other wildlife.

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

Petition received.

Health Insurance 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 all Australians are entitled to receive health services according to medical need.

That at the present time many Australians are unable to adequately insure themselves and their families against illness.

That the present scheme has serious defects and no longer serves the needs of the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will persevere with its efforts to provide a Universal Health Insurance Scheme in order that all Australians will receive the best medical attention regardless of income.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McKenzie. Petition received.

Education

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 at the present time many Australian children have a poor use of education resources.

That there are many children in Australia who suffer mental, physical, social and economic handicaps.

That in accordance with the recommendations of the Karmel Report, Australian children should be granted assistance on the basis of educational need.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will continue to press for the proposed Schools Commission and allocation pf funds on the basis of need, believing that these measures accord with the demands of equity and justice.

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

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 attraction’.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 magnificant possession.
  4. 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 1,436 square miles as recommended by the Northern Territory Reserves Board.

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

Petition received.

page 4585

QUESTION

POST OFFICES

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Some 338 official post offices in Australia are to be reclassified to unofficial status, based on the 1970 survey. Before closure, will an additional survey be conducted? Will matters such as isolation and service be ,taken into consideration or are they to be closed or reclassified only on economic grounds? Does every district or post office need to present a case as to why its status should not be altered?

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

– In answer to the honourable member for Forrest, I repeat that reclassification does not mean closure. Apparently this has been a continual process over the years. It is continual in the sense that if a district starts to decline or does not make as much progress as it should the Post Office, in its wisdom, has thought it more economical to provide the same services - and I emphasise that - by someone undertaking such work in the town in question. It is not a question of facilities not being maintained; but of the best method, from the Post Office point of view, of rendering those facilities. The honourable member represents the electorate of Forrest. Nannup, in that electorate, is one of the post offices under consideration. It was considered in 1970, and it is still under consideration in 1973, because its trading statistics show that it is taking $5,900 and costing $10,700 annually to maintain. In Cranbrook, another post office in the same electorate, the takings are $9,000 a year but it is costing $17,200 to maintain, so the whole aspect of this is how we are to continue to subsidise losses on this sort of basis and whether there is a better alternative. I give this undertaking to the honourable member: If it can be shown that such areas have growth potential and could become viable, there is no reason why the post offices should not be retained. Nevertheless, this is a continual process. I assure the honourable member that there will be no discontinuation of services; they will be carried out in another manner.

page 4586

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration. Is there a serious sex imbalance in Australia’s immigration program? Is it getting worse? If so, what does the Minister intend to do about it?

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

– The honourable member has posed to me a particularly big challenge. I might say that in my own household I would not be much of an advertisement for such a balance as I am outnumbered by four to one. The honourable member has raised a serious question, because in the early days of the immigration program there was no doubt that there was a considerable imbalance in the sexes, which led to a great deal of sterile competition. I am pleased to say that at present the balance of the sexes in Australia is better than it has been in all our latter history; it is about 101 to 100, meaning that for every 101 males there are 100 females. That represents a considerable improvement on the earlier position. I might say, however, that that situation does not apply across the board. In the countryside there are in fact 113 males to every 100 females, so the competition is much greater there. In urban areas the women now outnumber men by 100 to 97, so the urban boys have what I might term a much less competitive time. In the migrant groups there is still some imbalance because there are 114 males to every 100 females. However, there is some improvement in the intermarriage rate which helps the situation. Migrants captured 60,000 Australian brides in the last year for which I have the figures and that represents 17 per cent of marriages. So there has been some improvement. I will do my best to maintain the rate of improvement in the direction of balance.

page 4586

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Does he realise that the Minister for Labour early this year promised the Commonwealth Public Service an increased accrual rate for long service leave for over 10 years of service? Why did the Prime Minister withdraw support for the Minister for Labour, which meant that the Minister for Labour had to withdraw and break his public promise to the Commonwealth Public Service? Does the Prime Minister argue that the promise of the Minister for Labour would have been inflationary but that the leave bonus scheme, which the Prime Minister announced a day or two ago and which if it flowed through the whole of the Australian economy would cost between $450m and $500m, would not be inflationary?

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

– Both matters to which the honourable gentleman refers were decisions of the Cabinet. On 3 April last I announced on behalf of the Cabinet proposed changes in long service leave furlough entitlements of Australian Government employees. Later the Government decided that the implementation of the various proposals should be deferred, with the exception of the reduction of the basic qualification period for furlough from 15 to 10 years and the provision that the entitlement to furlough shall be a right. The Government deferred the other matters which had been announced last April pending the outcome of discussions with the States on the feasibility of a national long service leave scheme. All the State Ministers for Labour assured my colleague at a conference of Labour Ministers that the full implementation immediately of the Australian Government’s decision of last April would jeopardise the efforts to which they were all committed to get a national long service leave scheme. In those circumstances the Government decided to go ahead in legislation which has been before the Parliament with 2 particular provisions. It is still committed to the other provisions but will defer the legislation implementing them until the State governments have had the opportunity to introduce similar legislation for their own public servants and have had the opportunity to consider legislation, which is in their powers, to apply the same principles to all private employees.

The other question the honourable gentleman mentioned was raised yesterday by several of his colleagues. In the meantime I have got together the actual details of what other governments in Australia and various industrial tribunals have done, so I may repeat in this answer some of the matters I stated yesterday. Many people in private and public employment in Australia already receive holiday loadings. The case for holiday loadings to employees of the Australian Public Service can therefore <be justified on the principle of relativity. The case is reinforced by the fact that in many overseas countries public servants already get a holiday loading. I am informed that a number of State awards in each State, except Tasmania, have been varied to include provision for the payment of an annual leave loading generally of 17* per cent. In Queensland the Industrial Commission has declared that a 17i per cent loading should, with some small-

Mr Snedden:

Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I invite the Prime Minister to make a statement after question time and we will debate this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the question did elicit rather a long answer. It is for the Prime Minister to make his own decision in regard to this matter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I wish the right honourable gentleman would show some capacity to understand, even when things are said for the second time. In Queensland the Industrial Commission has declared that a 17i per cent loading should, with some small exceptions, be the standard prescription in all State awards, including the public service, at all pay levels. Furthermore, most wages staff in government employment in all States except Tasmania and

Western Australia receive a 17i per cent loading. An annual leave loading for salaried public servants of 17i per cent, with a maximum of SI 50, was promised by the Premier of New South Wales in his policy speech a couple of months ago. In Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, the Governments are actively considering an annual leave loading for salaried public servants as well as their wages staff. The parties to the Federal metal industry award reached agreement in the June 1972 review of the award on a ‘17i per cent annual leave bonus payment scheme. This provision was incorporated into the award by consent. Accordingly, the market situation justifies the payment of an annual leave loading for Australian Government employment. The matter has been the subject of claims by the associations concerned. The introduction of some form of loading was imminent.

Opposition members - Oh, oh.

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr Speaker, I wish some Opposition members would be better behaved. This question did come from the Liberal spokesman on industrial matters. He may purport to be the spokesman on many other matters, but he is the acknowledged spokesman on industrial matters. He therefore is entitled to have a considered reply. He was not as quick off the mark as some of his colleagues were yesterday. But he has now come to the party. He has asked the question and I am answering it with the dignity to which he is entitled.

The introduction of some form of loading was imminent. On 15 November, in response to claims from employee organisations, the Australian Public Service Board acting, not on Government instruction, but in accordance with its statutory responsibility as a pay fixation body and having regard to conditions applying elsewhere, made an offer on this matter. The Board’s offer was still being considered by some of the employee councils. The Government has decided that the question would be better settled by the introduction of legislation on which all members may vote. It would be interesting to know: Do members of the Opposition believe that the Public Service Board should have been instructed to oppose the claims which organisations were making and which State governments had already conceded or are Opposition members now saying that they are going to oppose the legislation when it is introduced next year?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, I request that the Prime Minister table the document from which he has read in order to make sure that the House has information relating to the full document and not only that pa:t that he read.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a matter on which the Prime Minister may make a decision.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker. I am entitled to ask for the document to be tabled and I so ask.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It has always been the practice that if a Minister reading from a document classifies that document it need not be tabled. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide.

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr Speaker, I ask for leave for the document to be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Lynch:

– You have read it out.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I know I have, word for word, but I do not mind if it appears in Hansard twice.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Many people in private and public employment in Australia already receive holiday loadings. The case for holiday loadings to employees of the Australian Public Service can therefore be justified on the principle of relativity. The case is reinforced by the fact that in many overseas countries public servants get a holiday loading.

I am informed that a number of State awards in each State (except Tasmania) have been varied to include provision for the payment of an annual leave loading generally of 17) per cent. In Queensland the Industrial Commission has declared that a 17) per cent loading should, with some small exceptions, be the standard prescription in all State awards, including the public service, at all pay levels.

Furthermore, most wages staff in Government employment in all States except Tasmania and Western Australia receive a 17) per cent loading. An annual leave loading for salaried public servants of 17) per cent with a maximum of $150 has been promised in New South Wales. In Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, the matter is under active consideration.

The parties to the Federal Metal Industry Award reached agreement in the June 1972 review of the award on a 17) per cent annual leave bonus payment scheme. This provision was incorporated into the award by consent.

Accordingly, the market situation justifies the payment of an annual leave loading for Australian Government employment. The matter has been the subject of claims by the associations concerned.

The introduction of some form of loading was imminent. On 15 November, in response to claims from employee organisations, the Public Service

Board acting not on Government instruction but in accordance with its statutory responsibility as a pay fixation body, and having regard to conditions applying elsewhere, made an offer on this matter. The Board’s offer was still being considered by some of the employee councils. The Government has decided that the question would be better settled by introduction of legislation on which all members may vote.

page 4588

QUESTION

PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN PILBARA REGION

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. This question is not supplementary to the one just asked, I take it?

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– No. I address my question to the Minister for Secondary Industy. Has his attention been drawn to front page reports in yesterday’s newspapers concerning proposals currently before the Government of Western Australia for an industry complex in the Pilbara region of Western Australia? If so, has the Minister any plans for consultation with the Government of Western Australia regarding these proposals? Is the Minister aware of the current state of the feasibility study being done by the Pilbara Study Group?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– I can say to the honourable member that I have seen the newspaper publicity to which the refers. It draws attention to the interest shown by overseas interests - in particular, Japanese interests, I understand - in the resources of the Pilbara region. Some little time ago arrangements were made for me to go to South Australia and Western Australia tomorrow - I hope to leave tomorrow night - to confer with the appropriate Ministers in South Australia and Western Australia who have responsibilities for secondary industry and industry generally on matters of a like kind to what is happening in the Pilbara. I certainly will be having discussions with them. Following that, I hope to visit the Pilbara over the weekend with members of my Department. We will make a thorough study, insofar as that can be done in a couple of days, of the area. I understand that at the same time Ministers of the Government of Western Australia will be present, and I do hope that profit will come from it. As far as the present stage of the feasibility study is concerned, I have not any up to date knowledge of that.

page 4588

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS HOMES

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. The interim report of the committee of inquiry into aged persons housing released last week recommends increases in Government subsidies and acceptable upper cost limits. In presenting the report, the Minister stated that it will be some time before a policy decision is made on these recommendations. Is the Minister aware that his statement has added further confusion to the already uncertain position of organisations considering building programs? These organisations do not want to proceed because of inflated building costs in relation to subsidies; but, if they intend to wait for a Government policy decision, they may be forced nevertheless to proceed in the future on a more unsatisfactory basis than now because the decision still has not been made. Does the Minister agree that these people face a dilemma? How long will they have to wait for a decision?

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

– -The adjustment of any subsidy rates, as I recollect the situation, requires an amendment of the appropriate Act. Quite clearly, therefore, nothing can be done in this respect until, at the earliest, the House resumes next year. In the meantime, a policy decision has to be made by the Government. Obviously, I cannot make that at question time.

page 4589

QUESTION

FRASER ISLAND

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for the Environment and Conservation aware of strong representations by Queensland conservation groups and a number of public minded people for a block of freehold land on Fraser Island, adjacent to the national park at Wathumba Creek, to be acquired by the National Estate and added to that park? Is he aware of the interest of private developers in the area? Can he indicate whether the National Estate task force, which visited Fraser Island recently, has made any recommendation in favour of the Australian Government purchasing this land and handing it over to the Queensland Government as an addition to that national park?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– Various conservation groups did make representations concerning this land on Fraser Island. The matter was referred to the National Estate task force which subsequently visited the area, I understand, and made a report strongly recommending that the land should not be allowed to be subdivided and developed but should be incorporated into the park which encompasses part of the island. The task force has reported to my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and to me, strongly recommending this course of action. We both concur. Our Departments at present are looking into the ways and means by which this may be accomplished.

The point is that the land, strictly speaking, is not within the confines of a national park that we could purchase directly. It is a small part of a park which is already a park controlled by the Queensland Government, so it requires negotiation and co-operation with the Queensland Government. I would like to end on the note that this case highlights the difficulty of handling a problem like this where one does not have direct power vested in the Australian Government and the State governments seem reluctant at this stage to act directly themselves. Ironically, of course, the whole matter need not develop into a crisis because it would be competent for the local authorities to deny permission to the developers to subdivide the land. But for some reason best known to themselves they seem unable to respond to the very obvious popular pressures to prevent this subdivision. I do not understand why. I only hope that increasing community pressure will eventually force them to consider the sensible approach and not permit the subdivision and allow this matter to rest until the Queensland State Government is able to see its way clear to purchase the land, if need be with help from the Australian Government.

page 4589

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

Mr LYNCH:

– Has the Minister for Social Security made any arrangements with suppliers of computer equipment for the operation of the Government’s health insurance program? If so, what is the cost of any orders which may have been placed? Have any orders been deferred? Are any of the arrangements subject to a payment of moneys by the Government in the event that the scheme is rejected by the Parliament? If this is the case, what is the Government’s financial liability? Finally, has the honourable gentleman had any discussions recently with the management of IBM Aust. Ltd concerning the matters to which I have referred?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I cannot recollect all of the details in relation to the acquisition of computers to be used by the Department of Social Security. I will arrange for the details to bc supplied to the honourable member in a letter. I have not had any discussions with the IBM people. As far as I can recollect no orders have been placed and no contracts have been signed. The computer which is being considered is one which can be used by the Department and would be required by the Department in any event whether or not the health insurance legislation is enacted. I will arrange for a letter containing more comprehensive information to be in the honourable member’s office today.

page 4590

QUESTION

ILLEGAL MIGRANTS FROM COLOMBIA

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Several weeks ago I asked the Minister for Immigration a question regarding a racket involving illegal migrants from Colombia. What steps has the Minister taken to end the racket? If he has not taken appropriate steps, when will he act? Can the Minister tell the House what action he has taken to protect the unfortunate victims of the racket already in Australia? Have any of them left families in Colombia? If so, what action does the Minister propose regarding these families?

Mr GRASSBY:
ALP

– It is true that the honourable member raised this matter in the House some weeks ago. Action has been taken at the Colombian end to end the racket. The Australian Ambassador in Brasilia proceeded to Bogota, the capital of Colombia, with a view to gaining permission of the Colombian Government for an Australian migration officer to visit that country. The nearest Australian migration officer is located in Lima in Peru. I am pleased to say that the Colombian Government has agreed to the request that this migration officer proceed on a regular basis to Colombia with a view to assisting in the handling of entry visas to Australia, both for tourist and migration purposes. I hope that this will end the racket that was perpetrated and which has brought to Australia people who are now in a most invidious position. They are people who have entered into contracts, if you like, which they cannot honour because they are in fact here illegally at the present time. I am pleased to say to the honourable member that we have not interfered with the people who are here. They are now identified and known. They know the difficulties associated with being the victims of this racket. What we will do is to review each and every case. We will do so with all compassion with a view to helping them over the difficulty which in all the cases I know of was not their fault but the result of their being involved by racketeers in a despicable way. As far as we know, the racket Kas ended in Colombia but the end results still have to be cleared up here. I give the honourable member this assurance: I hope in the next few weeks to be able to determine the cases with a view to seeing that justice is done to the migrants and their families. The honourable member is quite right - the families are still in Colombia, wondering very much what is going to happen.

page 4590

QUESTION

CATEGORISATION OF SCHOOLS

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Education. Is it a fact that primary schools in the Catholic systemic system have been designated in the Karmel report as being in the equivalent of categories F and G in recurrent resource use? Is it also a fact that the Acting Minister said in his second reading speech that Catholic systemic schools will receive an average of $90 per primary pupil in 1974 and $135 per primary pupil in 1975? Are these amounts equivalent to a category H subsidy? Will the Minister explain why Catholic primary schools in -the systemic system receive up to $40 per pupil more than independent primary schools of equivalent resource use categorisation?

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

– As to the exact mathematical position, I will check what was said in the second reading speech. Of course, the monetary allocation will be related to need. There is no shadow of doubt that Catholic schools in the parish and regional areas are the most needy of all schools, and have needs equivalent to government schools in the same areas. The great defect in the Opposition’s policy has been in trying to add an even amount to such imbalance, thereby perpetuating inequality. It is because of the inequality that the amounts for Catholic schools are greater. I submit that the whole reason why the Karmel Committee was appointed was to assess the needs. It is quite wrong and improper to suggest that by giving equal amounts we will achieve the same results. The true facts of life are that, because of the present inequality, we can help all children in all schools only by giving the needier schools greater amounts.

page 4591

QUESTION

ADVERTISING: PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that the pharmaceutical company, Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Ltd, recently sent by airmail a fresh red carnation to every medical practitioner in at least some States to publicise the drug eraldin made by ICI and from which restrictions on prescribing have recently been lifted? Is this a further example of unethical and expensive advertising by pharmaceutical companies? Is it a fact that last week ICI announced a record profit? Does a large proportion of the company’s income not come from the taxpayers through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme? Is there anything the Minister can do about the undesirable practice to which I have referred?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– It is true that the great bulk of pharmaceutical costs in Australia are paid from public moneys. In the last financial year this amounted to approximately $180m from Federal funds. I personally have not received a carnation. I am not able to speak for other doctors in Queensland or in other States. My Department has no control over the promotional advertising activities of drug companies except on radio and television. We have made it clear to ICI and every other drug company in the past that we are opposed to this sort of marketing gimmickry and that new products should be promoted solely on scientific and clinical data.

page 4591

QUESTION

WHEAT PRICES

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. As it is freely stated outside this House that the Government will no longer guarantee a return to wheat growers by, and when if necessary, Treasury subvention, but now proposes that any future price support will be in the form of a repayable loan to the industry, I ask: Is it true that for over 20 years under the previous Government growers operated under a stabilisation plan that guaranteed them the cost of production for a fixed quantity of wheat, thereby removing any suggestion that it was an open-ended commitment? As the reported new proposals remove such guarantees, when will the Government inform the growers of the nation of its intensions in order that growers may be able to plan their next year’s production? Will the growers be justified in asking that in future the Australian Wheat Board charge the consumers in Australia a price equivalent to the full international price instead of the present price which is running at approximately 50 per cent of the overseas price?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honourable member has asked a series of questions. Firstly, it is not a fact that over the last 20 years wheat growers have had the benefit of a guaranteed price based on cost of production.

Mr King:

– For a fixed quantity.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I said that it is not a fact, and the honourable member should know that, because in the last stabilisation scheme introduced by the Leader of the Australian Country Party the cost of production concept was altered. In effect, it was judged to be deficient and was replaced by a formula based upon the application of a moving index of price relatives of the various commodities making up cash costs and interest actually paid by producers. This was agreed to by both sides of the House as being the most effective method to replace the cost of production formula, which was not the best method to determine a guaranteed price because of deficiencies in relation to valuing land. In regard to the second point made by the honourable member, I am not aware of what discussions are going on outside the precincts of the Australian Agricultural Council or between the Minister for Primary Industry and the Ministers for Agriculture.

Mr King:

– What about Caucus? It decides these things.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable member asked what was going on outside. The main thing is that this matter is under active consideration by the Minister for Primary Industry and the Ministers for Agriculture in the States.

The other question asked by the honourable member was whether a price equivalent to the international price should be charged to the consumers in Australia as the domestic price of wheat. I do not think that the honourable member really believes in such a suggestion. What’ he is really saying is that it should be recognised that at certain periods the international price for wheat is far greater than the domestic price, just as in other periods the domestic price is far greater than the world price. It is true that in the first 10 years after the Second World War the wheat growers, for want of a better word, subsidised the Australian consumers to a very large degree; I think the figure was something like $390m. But we also must remember that in the 10 years up until this year, because of the higher domestic price for wheat the taxpayer in fact heavily subsidised the wheat grower. We must recognise this fact. I believe that the Australian Country Party has always subscribed to a policy of having a stable domestic price for wheat, but at the same time recognising that wide fluctuations can occur in the export market. All I can say in regard to the proposed new stabilisation scheme is that it is under active consideration by the Minister for Primary Industry in consultation with State Ministers.

page 4592

QUESTION

MEAT PRICES

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Whilst welcoming the setting up of a government meat inquiry committee to establish why falling meat prices are not passed on to the consumer, I ask: Would the Minister examine the possibility of establishing, as the best and only method of stabilising meat prices to both producers and consumers, a Federal statutory meat marketing authority armed with power to handle the entire meat industry in order to guarantee and stabilise prices to producers and exporters, to fix prices from the paddock to the place and, overall, to keep this important industry on a secure, stabilised and even-keel basis, thus avoiding the great fluctuations in prices which have bedevilled the producers and consumers for years?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– The concept of a federal meat marketing authority has been before various State governments and various Australian Governments over a long period of years. The basic principle, of course, is to attempt to stabilise the domestic price of meat, particularly beef, inrrspective of violent price fluctuations on the international market, and it is the same principle that I have just spoken about with respect to wheat.

Another excellent example is sugar, the marketing of which also involves stabilising the domestic price irrespective of the violent fluctuations on the international market. But I would sound this note of warning: There is a very great difference between stabilising a homogeneous commodity like wheat or sugar and a commodity such as say, beef, in respect of which there are quite a large number of cuts. Also there are distinct export areas and distinct domestic areas of .beef production. There is quite a big difference between stabilising a livestock industry where it may be three or four years before the calf is dropped and before it is turned off, and a cash crop. So there are very grave differences with respect to administration.

The other point of view, of course, is that the Government has no power with respect to a Federal statutory marketing authority. There has to be complementary legislation by the States. On the point raised regarding the problem of the price of beef, this is of course a perennial problem. The consumer, when he or she looks at the saleyard prices of cattle, believes meat prices ought to be lower, but when the cattleman looks at the retail price of, say, steak and other meats he thinks that he should be getting more for his cattle. The Government has decided that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will have a good look at this distinct problem which has been bedevilling not only consumers but also the cattle industry for a great number of years. In other words, who is getting the rakeoff in the middle man area? Is it the commission agent? Is it the retail butcher? Is it the wholesale butcher? Is it transport costs, or what is it? This is in fact what the BAE will be looking at. I suggest, however, that the answer to the price of beef in Australia is to increase the production of beef, to increase the production of cattle, and particularly in the breeding areas to cut down mortality, but certainly to have policies which will increase and expand the production of beef in Australia.

page 4592

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Minister for Social Security said earlier this year that, if the rate of growth in average weekly earnings of 11.3 per cent did not abate, the Government would increase the promised increase of SI. 50 twice a year for pensioners. The latest movement in the average weekly earnings for the September quarter shows a 5i per cent increase in average weekly earnings and indicates an annual rate much in excess of 11.3 per cent - indeed as high as 20 per cent. Will the Minister now take action to ensure that pensioners will not continue to be helpless victims of the Government’s inflation and that their standard of living will not be allowed to continue to drop?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– Quite clearly, decisions of this nature will be taken by the Government and there are proper processes for this. Equally clearly, those decisions would not be taken at question time and least of all by one Minister acting unilaterally. But I think it is a little more than ironic for members of the Opposition to start lecturing this Government about the welfare of pensioners. No one was more casual about their concern for pensioners than those opposite when they were in government. There were 5 occasions during the time in which they were in office when pensioners had to wait 2 years for any increase at all in their pension - in 1954, 1956, 1958, 1965 and 1967. Imagine members of the Opposition lecturing members of this Government about concern for pensioners! Let us look at another aspect of their record in the treatment of pensioners, the long term erosion of the comparable living standards available to pensioners as against the rest of the community.

Mr Snedden:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question related to the plight of pensioners today and it is to that question that I am asking for an answer. If the honourable gentleman demonstrates his attitude towards the pensioners’ plight today by looking back, he is not serving the interests of those people. My question relates to them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister is entitled to provide an answer that he thinks befits the question, provided it is relevant to the question itself.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The point taken by the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly true. We would not look back to the records of past Governments for inspiration or guidance as to what we should do in the treatment of pensioners. The point I was making, though, is that in the Opposition’s period of office a long term erosion took place in the relative living standard made available for pensioners as against that available on average for the rest of the community. In the 1940s, when there was a Labor government, the standard rate of pension was about 26 per cent of average weekly earnings, and then set in a long term erosion and the pension fell below 20 per cent of average weekly earnings. For instance, last year at one stage it was not much above 18 per cent of average weekly earnings. We are moving as quickly as we can to restore the purchasing power of pensions, and to restore a relative standard of living for pensioners that was denied them through this long term erosion, through the consciously directed neglect by the people who sit opposite, who made pensioners pay time after time, when recessionary economic policies were applied by the former Government, by restricting the rates of increase in pensions. Within a period of 12 months of office we have increased pensions in money terms by more than they have ever been increased before - by S3. We will be increasing pensions again early in the new year. The greatest increase those opposite ever made in a 12-mo.nth period was about $1.70. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections will cease. It is never too late to take the appropriate action despite the fact that it is near the end of the session. If any honourable member wants to get home early, just let me know.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Finally, the supreme irony of it all is that the people in Opposition are the people who are constantly lecturing the Government about the need to cut public expenditure. I challenge them here to start defining where they will cut public expenditure. Is it on pensions? Is it on defence? Is it on public undertakings ‘in the area for which my colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, has responsibility? Where will they cut expenditure? We know that in the past when they have been in office when there was time to apply, as they used to so quickly and without any great humanitarian feeling, recessionary economic policies to control inflation - policies clearly defined to create widespread unemployment and a cutdown in industry, leading to bankruptcies and great personal failures and distress - a large part of the burden was imposed on pensioners. We will not do that. We have given ourselves a clear objective. Pensions will reach 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and will increase twice yearly until we achieve this objective.

Mr Turner:

– I rise on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Bradfield on a point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already given the call to the honourable member for Bradfield on a point of order.

Mr Turner:

– The Minister has now sat down and I do not wish to pursue my point of order, but he was clearly and absolutely out of order in the reply he has just given.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House, please?

Mr Chipp:

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! We will have the presentation of papers first. We had personal explanations for 40 minutes recently while Ministers were waiting to present papers.

page 4594

AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUITS BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963-1970, I present the forty-seventh annual report of the Australian Canned Fruits Board for the year ended 31 December 1972, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 4594

REPORT ON ROADS

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I present for the information of honourable members a report entitled Report on Roads in Australia - 1973’ prepared by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in compliance with section 14 (a) of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act 1964.

page 4594

CERTIFICATES OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Citizenship Act 1948-1969, I present the annual return of persons granted certificates of Australian citizenship for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 4594

PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES

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

– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Act 1968-1972, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the financial year 1972- 73 and projects in relation to which payments have been authorised.

page 4594

STATES GRANTS (TEACHERS COLLEGES) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section- 9 of the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1970, 1 present a statement setting out the payments that have been authorised under this Act during the financial year 1972-73 and specifying the projects in relation to which the payments have been so authorised.

page 4594

STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 5 of the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971, 1 present a statement of schools assisted under the Act for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 4594

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969, I present a statement containing particulars of the guarantees that have been given under this Act during the year ended 30 June 1973 and payments made under any guarantee given under this Act.

page 4594

DRUG USE PROBLEMS

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report entitled ‘Recommendations for an Australian Response to Drug Use Problems’.

page 4594

MEDICAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report from the Interim Committee of the National Hospitals and Health Services Commission entitled ‘A Medical Rehabilitation Program for Australia’.

page 4594

RIVER MURRAY WORKING PARTY

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Maribyrnong · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the interim report of the River Murray Working Party, dated September 1973.

page 4595

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CLERICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION JOURNAL

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 4595

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim that he has been misrepresented?

Mr CHIPP:

– Yes, by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). Without canvassing your ruling, Mr Speaker, the Ministers leave the chamber and the Minister for Social Security is not here now to have an opportunity to reply to my allegation that he misrepresented me. Yesterday he spoke in the debate on the Health Insurance Bill. He was speaking about me - I quote from page 4506 of Hansard - when he said: . . we are particularly sorry to note that the Liberal Party spokesman on social security has put those 1 million Australians together in one category and labelled them as ‘pensioners, the indolent, migrants, no-hopers and alcoholics’.

On 6 December in this House I made a personal explanation, which is reported at page 4377 of Hansard, where I said that I had been quoted in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of that morning “ as saying that the Government Health scheme would benefit only pensioners, migrants, indolents no-hopers and alcoholics. I went on to say, and I quote myself:

What I said was the complete opposite of what the heading suggests. I am becoming a little sick and tired, as I think are most other members of Parliament, of sub-editors putting on statements made by members of Parliament headings that have no relation to what those members said.

As I said that, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) nodded acknowledgment of my point of order. The Minister for Social Security was in the House when I made that rebuttal on a point of misrepresentation. He heard what 1 said, and he saw his own Prime Minister acknowledge it, yet yesterday he came into the House and repeated that calumny about me. If that kind of action were taken by a man outside this place, anyone would have no hesitation in calling that man a liar. In this House, because the conventions prevent us doing that I shall content myself with saying that yesterday the Minister for Social Security behaved without honour, without decency, and without a shred of honesty.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have given the honourable member the call, but for what I do not know.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– For a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. A few minutes ago - I am sure that this was accidental - the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) misrepresented certain legislation for which I was responsible as Minister. He said that the upper limit on subsidies for aged persons homes could not be changed without an amendment to the relevant Act. That was untrue. I am sure he made the error in innocence. It is true that the Aged Persons Hostels Act requires amendment for the raising of the upper limit. The Minister - I am sure, innocently - misled the House, and the consequences that he put before the House simply do not follow. It is a matter of some importance. I regret that the Minister, although I told him that I would raise this matter, chose to walk out of the House rather than listen and accept the correction. It is very bad when Ministers do this kind of thing-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has made his personal explanation.

page 4595

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Industries Assistance Commission Bill 1973. Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1973.

page 4595

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– -I move:

Honourable members are probably aware that on 9 October this year my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) made a statement in the Senate announcing that the Government had decided to publish in bound volumes a consolidation of the Acts passed by the Australian Parliament as in force at the end of this year. The Attorney-General pointed out that the reprint of the Acts is a massive task, and referred to the fact that when the last consolidation of Australian Acts took place, which was as long ago as 1950, the publication ran to 5 volumes of Acts and an additional volume of tables, indexes and materials of that kind. The Attorney-General said that the amount of legislation since that time has been such that it is estimated that, by the end of this year, the Acts of the Australian Parliament will run to some 11,000 pages, which is more than twice the size of the previous consolidation, and that the new consolidation will probably extend to some 11 volumes each of about 1,000 pages.

Honourable members are probably also aware that the Government Printer is using new Photon equipment for the printing of Hansard. This equipment will also be used in connection with the printing of the consolidation and should be of tremendous help. The Attorney-General is hopeful that, by using this equipment, the first volume of the consolidation will be published in June 1974 and each subsequent volume will be published at monthly intervals. The aim is to complete the project by June 1975. As the AttorneyGeneral has said, this time-table is an immense improvement on the last consolidation, which took some 5 years to complete, notwithstanding that that publication was only half the size of the one now proposed. As already mentioned, the last consolidation took place a long time ago - in 1950. Notwithstanding the fact that the more important Australian Acts are regularly published in pamphlet form, this new consolidation is long overdue and will be of tremendous assistance to persons, both lawyers and others, in finding provisions in Australian Acts. It is well known to anyone who practises law that one of the greatest troubles that any lawyer faces is finding his law. If he has to spend a lot of unnecessary time finding it, it is expensive and it is reflected in the expense which inevitably, unfortunately, is passed on to the client or the consumer. This consolidation of Acts will help in large measure to overcome that problem and make the law easier to find. The year 1950 is indeed a long time ago..

An important preliminary step in the program of publishing the consolidation is the enactment of the Bill now before the House. To repeat the rather apt phrase that was used in 1934 by the then Attorney-General when introducing the Statute Law Revision Bill of that year, and used again in 1950 by the Attorney-General of that time, the main object of the Bill is ‘merely to cut away the dead wood on the statute-book’. Although this is its main object, the Bill goes further than the repeal of obsolete Acts and provisions in Acts. It also corrects errors and up dates some matters of form. In short, the Bill will clear the way for the consolidation, and will substantially reduce its volume and improve its form. I would like to assure honourable members that the Bill will not effect any change in substance in the law. Having in mind the object of the Bill, particularly when that object is considered as clearing the way for the publication of the consolidation, I am sure that the Bill will be supported by both sides of the House and be given a speedy passage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 4596

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. [ present a Bill to be known as the Remuneration Tribunal Bill 1973. The Bill provides for review by a Tribunal of a number of salary groups, namely, judges, First Division officers of the Public Service, statutory full-time and part-time officials, and members of Parliament. The Bill flows from the 1971 Kerr Report. The Government is of the view that a single tribunal would facilitate coordination of higher salaries in the Australian

Government arena and the development of a unified approach to common issues. The legislation provides therefore that the Tribunal will operate as a single tribunal.

I tura now to the detail of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the Tribunal will comprise 3 persons appointed by the GovernorGeneral. The chairman shall be a judge or a retired judge of a State supreme court or a person with qualifications entitling him to appointment as a judge of a State supreme court. Provision is made to preclude the appointment to the Tribunal of persons who might be expected to have an interest in the findings of the Tribunal. The Bill provides for the Tribunal to be appointed on a part-time basis for a fixed term of 5 years.

There are constitutional barriers which would prevent the Tribunal from making determinations relating to remuneration of judges and salaries of Ministers. For these reasons, Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the functions of the Tribunal will be advisory in respect of these matters. Parliament itself will need to pass the necessary legislation in those cases where the Tribunal has an advisory role before the findings of the Tribunal can be given effect.

Clause 7 endows the Tribunal with the power to determine salary and/ or annual allowance in respect of First Division officers, full-time and part-time statutory officials, members of Parliament and office-holders of Parliament and allowances - but not salaries - for Ministers of State. The Bill provides that the Minister shall arrange for a copy of each determination to be laid before each House within 15 sitting days of receipt by him. Either House of Parliament will be able to disallow any determination of the Tribunal within 15 sitting days after a copy has been laid before that House. The Tribunal will conduct reviews on its own initiative whenever it is satisfied that there is prima facie a case for review ‘but at least annually. Provision is also made for the Tribunal to report at the one time for all salary groups. The Bill provides for the Tribunal to inform its mind in whatever manner it thinks fit and for the Government to provide assistance as appropriate. Reports of the Tribunal will be made public. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lynch) adjourned.

BANKING BILL (No. 2) 1973 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 December (vide page 4491). on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The Banking Bill (No. 2) 1973 seeks to remove any legal doubt which may exist with respect to the arrangements for taxation screening of applications to the exchange control authorities in relation to transactions involving tax havens. The former Government approved these screening arrangements in conjunction with the relaxation of the conditions governing portfolio investment overseas by Australian residents. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) has informed me that the Government, while not conceding an absence of legal authority, has received opinions expressing certain doubts as to the adequacy of the legal backing for such arrangements. The Opposition accepts that there ought not to be any legal uncertainties surrounding the operations of screening procedures and we therefore support the Bill now before the House.

It should be made clear that as a matter of firm principle we oppose any resort by Australians and Australian companies to tax avoidance schemes either within Australia or by the use of tax havens overseas. On 19 July 1972 the former Treasurer foreshadowed legislative measures to curtail tax avoidance with respect to Papua New Guinea, Norfolk Island, Cocos Islands and Christmas Island. The legislation foreshadowed then was passed by the House during this session of Parliament. In his announcement on 19 July the former Treasurer gave a general indication of future actions in this field in these terms:

I have been speaking about the tax haven status of places under Australian jurisdiction. The Government has also directed that the problem of other tax havens be examined with a view to taking action to prevent losses of Australian revenue through resort to these places.

We recognise that the tightening of the Australian tax law in recent years to curb tax avoidance within Australia has led to persons carrying out avoidance transactions outside Australia and beyond the scope of the existing taxation laws. In principle we are prepared to support such action as is appropriate to ensure that obligations which are the legal intent of the Government are in fact not subject to deliberate avoidance. Tax avoidance, even where it is not subject to illegality, remains a clear abrogation of social responsibility. I am sure that that conviction is shared on both sides of this Parliament. As such it ought not to be condoned or in fact abetted by the exercise of legal expertise.

In conclusion, I havebeen informed by the Treasurer that the Taxation Office is adopting, and will continue to adopt, a restrained approach in its consideration of exchange control applications that come before it for consideration. Its interest will remain that of ascertaining whether or not a particular transaction involves avoidance of Australian tax and in those cases where there is no more to a transaction than the use of the New Hebrides to avoid tax of another country the Office has no function. Further, there is no constraint on ordinary business transactions with the New Hebrides. In short, this Bill is simply designed to remove legal doubts about, and to validate, procedures which are now in operation. We have accepted the Treasurer’s assurance concerning the administration of these procedures and we will co-operate to the fullest extent to expedite the legislation before the end of present Parliamentary business. However, I add that we believe it to be important that the power of inquiry held by the Commissioner as provided in clause 3 of the Bill should not be applied beyond the reasonable requirements of the screening assessment. I take it that by the nodding of his head the Treasurer indicates that I have his assent to that comment, which I believe to be important. The Opposition parties support the Bill which is before the House.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) for his courtesy in facilitating the passage of this measure, which is urgent.

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.

Sitting suspended from 12.50 to 2.15 p.m.

page 4598

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December (vide page 4248), on motion by Mr Connor:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrar

– The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 seeks to set up a petroleum and minerals authority to enter into the search for and the production of petroleum and minerals. The Opposition totally rejects the whole concept of this Bill which is designed for nothing but naked socialism. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) told us at the beginning of his second reading speech that the decision to set up this authority is based on the policy of the Government as enunciated by the 1971 Launceston Conference of the Australian Labor Party. I am getting a bit sick and tired of this Launceston Conference being treated as though it is holy writ. The conference was, after all, only a meeting of the faceless 36 men or whatever number they have now been increased. These men were not elected by the people and it is doubtful whether there was even one geologist among the lot of them. One of the Minister’s colleagues, the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) thought so little of this conference that he strongly attacked its decisions on primary industry of which he was then the official Opposition spokesman by saying that very few members of the conference knew anything about rural matters. If he could say this about the conference when there were after all some farmers present, how much more could this be said of the mining sector when there were no geologists or no mining experts present?

The policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) contained no mention of the proposed authority, so under no circumstances can the Minister for Minerals and Energy claim to have a mandate to set it up. The Launceston Australian Labor Party platform on minerals bears all the marks of having been prepared by a person living in the past with a Eureka Stockade philosophy. One would not even be surprised if the Minister himself was the author of this document as it shows that old fashioned Labor distrust of anyone who is successful or anyone who tries to develop his country by private enterprise. One can understand, of course, the Minister having these views because, after all, I believe he is approaching the allotted span of 3 score years and ten. But the public is entitled to expect that minerals policy is not made by a few Party hacks at a Labor Party binge but rather as a result of long and serious discussion at Cabinet, departmental and industry level. We are entitled to ask: What were the views put forward by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and were the views of the Bureau either sought or listened to? We are also entitled to ask what views did industry put forward to the Government. The answer is probably none as we know it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the petroleum and mining industry to have meaningful discussions with the Minister.

The Minister in his second reading speech went on to highlight the philosophical differences between the Government and the Opposition. There is, of course, a vast gulf between the 2 Parties. Under our Government, mineral exploration and development thrived. Australia was the envy of the world. Twelve months ago the mining industry had a bright future ahead of it and great expectations. Today the Australian mining industry is shaken to its very foundation. The previous Government had developed a thriving industry by encouraging private enterprise and by assisting it to get the funds it needed. However, we realise that private enterprise must be regulated by government so that the nation receives a fair share of the rewards of the development and the sale of our resources. We realise also that Australians should have a reasonable share in the management of projects in Australia and also that they should have an opportunity to acquire a reasonable share in equity participation. At the same time we recognise the vital role played by overseas capital, expertise and access to markets in the recent development of the industry. We recognise also that further capital will be required if development is not to be unduly restricted. Nevertheless, we will encourage a high and a rising degree of local equity.

I believe that no Australian interest in Australian resources should be disposed of to overseas interests without specific approval. The Labor policy or philosophy is a good deal harder to comprehend because there have been so many contradictory statements made trying to explain what it is. The Prime Minister, for example, in his Tokyo speech, which was later tabled in this House and which was entitled

Foreign Investment in Australia’, said that in future we would have 100 per cent local ownership of oil, gas, coal and uranium. Later, however, at the Press Club he stated that the Government might permit foreign equity in oil and gas. The Minister for Minerals and Energy also states that this policy is being applied in a pragmatic way and that all cases will be considered on their merits. Yet earlier in his statement the Minister said that Australia will be the primary partner in such enterprises forthwith. Does this statement mean that there must be over 50 per cent Australian equity? If it does, it should be spelt out. The present Government used to talk of encouraging greater Australian ownership of our resources. I used to think - I now find mistakenly - that this meant getting more Australian shareholders holding shares in Australian resources. I have come to realise that when the Minister talks of Australian ownership he is not talking of individual Australian ownership but of Australian Government ownership. This has become obvious because the people who are suffering most from the policies of the present Government are the small Australian companies.

One only has to read the headings in the financial sections of the newspapers each day to realise this. I quote a few of them: ‘ “New search for oil virtually ended” says Alliance head’; ‘ “Government hurting us” says Western Mining head’; ‘ “Lack of policy causing difficulties” says EZ chairman’; ‘Attack by Abrolhos on Government oil, gas policies’; ‘Search for minerals at its lowest point for years’. So one could go on. Virtually every paper every day carries an attack on the present Government and the present Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Minister has sought to hide the downturn in oil search but the figures are clear and they speak for themselves.

Let me give these figures to the House. The footage drilled in Australia for the calendar year 1972, which was our last year in office, was 965,898 feet. In other words, just on one million feet was drilled in the search for oil and gas during that calendar year. The present calendar year of 1973 shows a downturn to 551,400 feet in footage drilled - in other words, just over half a million feet or only just over half of what was drilled in the previous year. In the 1972 calendar year 134 wells reached total depth. In the present calendar year, which is the first calendar year in which the present Government and the present Minister have operated, 73 wells reached total depth. Again this was just over half the number for the previous calendar year. We should realise that many of the actions taken by the Minister, particularly those taken in the last Budget, are only just starting to bite. We should bear in mind that since our Government went out of office there has been a carry forward of people still actively searching and this kept up the tempo for a certain time. But because of the many actions taken by the Minister this is really starting to fall off very significantly. This time last year we had 7 wells operating off shore in Australian waters. Today there are only four, which again is just over half. We have 22 rigs available to drill for oil in Australia but only one of them is operating today.

Mr Wentworth:

– Is that right?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Yes; only one. There are two which are called active in that they are being used but they are possibly being moved from one site to another. Therefore one can say that there are 19 idle, one operating and 2 which we hope will operate. But this is an appalling situation. Of course the Minister must bear the responsibility for much of this lack of drilling.

Let us take the case of Abrolhos Oil NL, originally a small Australian company and now associated with the British Petroleum Company of Australia Ltd and other partners, the names of which I am not certain. This is only one example of the many things that have happened in the drilling field. Abrolhos negotiated an agreement with Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd whereby Esso would farmin and drill a certain number of wells. At least it would prove a particular structure in order to earn itself - at no cost to Abrolhos - a share in any discovery which might be made. The Minister refused to approve this farm-in. The result was that this structure has not been drilled and probably never will be drilled. The particular rig went off to South East Asia and will probably never be seen in Australia again.

One could go through many of these cases. Let us take the case of Mount Isa Mines Ltd which sought a farm-in in that very prospective area of the north-west shelf. No one could call Mount Isa Mines Ltd other than an Australian operated company and a company which now has a majority of Australian shareholders. It is a first class company from every point of view for the Australian nation.

Yet it has been prevented from drilling at a time when the Minister says that we need all the oil we can get. He has done everything he possibly could to prevent it from drilling. In the last calendar month we have drilled just over half of what was drilled in Australia the previous year. Once the Minister’s actions really start to bite we will be lucky to drill a quarter of what was drilled previously.

Everywhere there is this dramatic downturn as companies leave Australia and rigs lie idle. Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd, Continental Oil Co. of Australia Ltd, Union-Kern and Tricentral are all ceasing operations here. I do not doubt that there are more which have decided that the game is just not worth the candle in Australia. As I said in the House a fortnight ago - I re-emphasise this - there was only one rig drilling on-shore then; there is only one rig drilling on-shore today in Australia’s 3 million square miles, and 19 rigs are shown as idle. The policies of the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government led to the discovery of crude oil which has saved Australia over $ 1,000m in imports. This saving, which is currently running at about $300m per annum, will continue for at least the next 10 years. The Labor Party’s policy has led to a sharp reduction in the interest in oil drilling.

The present Government has discouraged oil search, firstly, by terminating the subsidy; secondly, by terminating the tax deductions for share subscriptions; thirdly, by banning farms-ins; fourthly, by imposing a 25 per cent - now it has gone up to one-third - Reserve Bank deposit freeze on overseas funds; fifthly, by terminating the tax exemption for petroleum dividends up to the amount of the capital expenditure; sixthly, by the decision to acquire the north-west shelf gas at the well head; and, seventhly, by the creation of a general air of apprehension and uncertainty by attacks on the industry and in particular on overseas companies. We all recall those fantastic statements by the Minister, such as mugs’ and ‘hill billies’, a ‘ripping and raping’, flogging off the north-west’ and all that sort of stuff. What magnificent language to come from a Minister of the Crown!

I believe that the Government has done this quite deliberately so as to reduce oil search to the stage where it thinks it can justify a Government owned and operated authority coming in to fill the gap which it has deliberately created and thus paving the way for complete nationalisation of the industry. The first discouragement of oil search that I mentioned - the termination of the subsidy - makes nonsense of a speech made by the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) in April 1972 when he referred to the previous Government’s ‘miserly policy on exploration subsidies’. He said that these subsidies should be looked upon as a national investment which was capable of yielding tremendous results. He said that there was an urgent and justifiable need substantially to increase the exploration subsidy, particularly to Australian companies. It should not be forgotten that if the drillers are successful the subsidies are repaid to the Government. So one cannot say: ‘Here is something that the vast international oil cartels are getting and taking home.’ The Government is spending it there, but the companies repay it in the event of a successful discovery. So I agree with the Minister for Northern Development.

In the Bill before this House the Government is aiming to fill the gap by using taxpayers’ money for risk capital - something to which the Opposition is implacably opposed. The Government is talking about gambling $50m per annum on oil and mineral exploration and development. There is no sign of that in the legislation and there is no appropriation. The Minister said nothing about $50m in his second reading speech. Yet apparently it has been leaked to the Press that this is what the amount will be. The Opposition has no knowledge whether it is correct. But the main thing is that if $50m is divided between mineral and oil exploration there will be $25m for each. This would be quite inadequate to reach the desired total. At present Australia is spending $100m per annum on oil search, but because of the present Government’s policies this is dropping sharply. Last week I suggested in this House that we should be spending anywhere from $200m to $250m per annum if we desired to be self-sufficient in oil in the 1990s.

One is entitled to ask: What is the need of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority to extend its activities into minerals when we already have an abundance of most of the more common minerals? The Minister mentioned this in his second reading speech. He seeks to justify his Authority by quoting other countries that have government equity in oil search. Of course the Government can par ticipate in business ventures in competition with private enterprise. The question is not whether it can but whether it should. Is it likely to be more efficient than private enterprise? He mentions the British Government as an example. All that it has done is to become a major shareholder in BP. The British Government is represented on the board of directors but it is understood that the government representative has very limited powers, and they are powers of negation. But what the Minister for Minerals and Energy is proposing is a very different kettle of fish. This is to be an Authority with wide and dictatorial powers.

Let me come to certain aspects of the Bill which give me the greatest cause for concern. May I say quite frankly that I do not believe that a measure as complex as this, with vast ramifications for the nation and for CommonwealthState relations, should be brought in and guillotined - as it will be - through the Parliament in the dying hours of a long and arduous session. The Opposition needs time to look at it and to suggest alterations which possibly would have made it into a better Bill. If any example is needed as to how this legislation has been rushed in one has only to look at the amendments which had been circulated by the Minister before we even started to debate the Bill. He has brought in some 16 amendments to the Bill which he introduced last week. He could not even get it right himself. How does he expect us to comprehend something which is quite vast in its ramifications and which we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with our State counterparts. Of course, there must be some doubt as to whether the Government possesses the constitutional power to set up an authority to explore for and mine minerals and petroleum. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution that a government has such a power. So it is extremely doubtful. But even if the government has the power, should this allow the Minister virtually to usurp the power of the State Mines Departments?

This Bill seeks to give the authority sweeping powers of entry and occupation, irrespective of other title to the land. Clause 14, subclause (6), says:

In this section, a reference to land includes a reference to land owned or occupied by a State.

Thus, it is possible for a justice of the peace, perhaps not even from the State in which the Authority intends mining, to issue a warrant allowing the Authority to enter land for the purpose of commencing to explore for or carry on operations for the recovery of petroleum or minerals. Does this warrant override the decisions of the State mining warden? How is the justice of the peace to know whether anyone already has title in the area concerned, or does it not matter? Are companies which have expended large sums in Australia on exploration to have their permits filched from them with perhaps some compensation? The Bill says that compensation will be paid to the owner or occupier of the land. This is not particularly clear, so the companies perhaps could have their permits filched from them without even compensation.

As I read the Bill, the Authority may perform the functions conferred on it ‘so as to facilitate trade and commerce with other countries’. Does this mean that it could enter, for example, Mount Tom Price so as to mine iron ore for the purpose of trade and commerce with Japan? I cannot see why it would not mean that. If this is so, no mine in Australia would be free of the threat of nationalisation. But, of course, this is going to an extraordinary length. All that the Minister has to do is to put a notice in the Australian Government Gazette. The Bill states:

The Authority may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare an area of the Australian continental land mass to be a petroleum exploration area or a minerals exploration area for the purposes of this Act . . .

It goes on to state:

The Authority shall not commence to explore for, or carry on operations for the recovery of- these minerals -

. unless the occupier of the land has consented in writing . . . or the Authority has been granted a warrant under section 50 . .

As I have said, all the Authority has to do to get a warrant is to find a justice of the peace - probably in Parliament House - who has never even been to Western Australia, and he will give a warrant for the Authority to enter a particular area. It is quite ludicrous.

Let us look at the functions of the Authority. It could certainly be said that it is necessary for additional search for petroleum in Australia to be conducted. How that is to be conducted, of course, is a subject of great difference between the Minister and ourselves. But one can ask: Is it necessary for additional search for such things as sand, clay, stone, earth, gravel, minerals - which are described as ‘a naturally occurring substance or mixture of substances*, which I must say is an incredible use of the English language - coal, timber, wood or other materials or other things. I should like to know what ‘other things’ are but I suppose those words were inserted in case they had left out anything. It is an extraordinary situation that here, the Minister for Minerals and Energy is seeking to establish an authority which will have the widest powers, I suppose, of any authority in any Bill that I have ever seen come before this House in the 24 years in which I have been here.

But it goes even further than that. The Authority can acquire mining undertakings. By that I take it that it can go to Mount Isa Mines Ltd and acquire it and, apparently, there is no need for the shareholders of that company to agree to the acquisition. Under this Bill, it will have the power for such acquisition and can take over such a company at whatever price it feels like paying.

Mr Katter:

– I think this is based on the Chile business. It will have the same results.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Yes, and they all finished up out of work. The Authority can underwrite issues of shares or debentures in a company. This again is a most extraordinary situation. So of course, the Opposition has come in with a recommendation which has been unanimously accepted that we totally oppose every concept of this Bill.

In the fairly short time remaining at my disposal let me touch on a few other points. In his second reading speech the Minister for Minerals and Energy said:

  1. . our attitude will engender a new respect for our Australian nation.

Now honestly, I feel that he really must be joking or else he feels that if he says this often enough, like the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) saying that he is the greatest, perhaps someone will come to believe him. But one has only to read the newspapers to get the facts. I have mentioned the local newspapers, but honourable members can read in overseas newspapers a constant denigration of the policies of the present Australian Government. I quoted last week from the ‘London Economist’ in which an article entitled ‘Find it and Hope’ asked what earthly sense there is in anyone investing money in the search for oil in Australia when they know that if they find it it will be taken over by the Minister and confiscated. Only yesterday in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ there was an article titled Loss of Confidence . . .’. It referred to a warning given in ‘Petroleum Press Service’. I should like to read the first part of this article which states:

Moves by the Australian Government to take over all North-West Shelf production at the wellhead from Woodside-Burmah may cause a severe loss of confidence in further hydrocarbons explorations.

This is the view of the leading international oil industry magazine, ‘Petroleum Press Service’, in its December article marking the first year of Labor Government in Australia.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, had ‘acted in ways which leave oilmen wondering what the future holds for petroleum exploration and exploitation,’ it said.

And so this London published magazine goes on. If one wished, one could quote article after article. The Minister in his second reading speech said: ‘We shall aim at greater processing’. It is one thing to aim at greater processing but it is quite another thing to take actions which will increase processing. We took some of these actions when in Government. The present Minister has withdrawn the tax concessions on plant which of course were introduced specifically to encourage people to engage in further processing because the more we process a mineral before we export, the more we get by way of return. So, it is all very well to make a pious statement that ‘we will aim at greater processing’, but what has been the effect of the various actions that the Minister has taken? We know that the proposals for the Weipa alumina plant have been cancelled. There was to be constructed a $500m plant in which 12 of the major users of alumina in the world were going to invest money and develop the project. However, with a combination of the revaluations of the Australian dollar and the loss of concessions, particularly tax concessions, these companies found that it was no longer economic and the project was cancelled. This is just one case out of so many in which there was a great opportunity for development but in which the Minister for Minerals and Energy, far from aiming at greater processing, has made certain that greater processing does not occur.

If the Government wants to aim at greater processing, it must give concessions. It must look at the costs of transport and power. The Government must either provide the infrastructure itself or at least provide some concessions to people who are willing to provide the infrastructure because in so many of these mining towns it is not merely a case of building a plant to process the minerals; the companies must also build the schools, hospitals, police stations and. everything that goes wilh it. The Minister says that he will insist on world market prices for export. Of course, we always insisted on world market prices for export. The Minister said:

We aim to make our judgments taking into account Aboriginal interests.

This interests me. What does he mean by ‘taking into account Aboriginal interests’? We have always strongly believed that all minerals in Australia should be owned by the community and virtually all of them in fact are owned by the community. If a person owns a block of land, he does not own the minerals under that land and it would be a completely retrograde step if we ever reverted to a system like that. It is true of course, that there are a few old titles in Australia - pre- 1890 titles, I think - in which people do own the title to the minerals. But one of the great advantages that we have always had in Australia is that the state owns the title to the minerals and the state makes the arrangements for the permits, the processing, royalties and everything of this sort. I would hate to see a system such as the one which applies in the United States where one sees what one could call the fat cats doing nothing and drawing 16) per cent from everyone who mines oil under their land. However, it appears to me that the Minister could be intending to do this with Aborigines. Is the Government going to have discrimination with Aborigines owning title to minerals, v/hen no one else owns such a title? I am glad to see from the assistant Minister - I do not know what we can call him - a nod indicating that this will not happen.

Unfortunately I see that my lime has almost expired. I had wanted to say what the Opposition would do to get this search for oil going again. I do not have the time to do this but it is well known that we have always looked carefully at and had close discussions with the industry and encouraged private enterprise and we will continue to do so. Of course immediately we return to office, which I expect to be about the middle of next year, we will set about seeing that all these people who have been so alienated and who are so necessary to the future of Australian petroleum are brought back and welcomed back into Australia again.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– The speech we have just heard from the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) is that of a very biased and stultified intellect. He said at the outset that his Party was totally opposed to the legislation and yet every ounce of bis argument could have been construed to mean that his Party was, in fact, a most .ardent supporter of the legislation because all of the issues he raised are reasons why this legislation ought to be carried. For his own information I would like to read a section of the editorial of that well known radical journal the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 6 December concerning this very authority. It says:

The Government’s decision to invest some $50m in minerals exploration through a petroleum minerals authority is in principle a sensible one. It is of course a marked change from the policy of the previous Government which encouraged exploration through a range of taxation concessions and subsidies. However there was more than a little justification in Mr Connor’s criticism of that system and the abuses necessarily associated with it. The taxation concessions in particular have become blatant tax ramps. It therefore makes sense to have the public funds involved in supporting exploration invested in a much more deliberate and selective way.

Those are the words of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ editorial and normally that paper is a most solid supporter of the Party of the honourable member for Farrer and not of this Government. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ at times has been critical of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), but that is a sensible view that it has enunciated in that editorial and it is a view that the honourable member’s Party could well take but for the fact that I am certain that the general mass of his Party is being misled by his particular biases in relation to the question of national development.

I think it was impertinent for the honourable member for Farrer to refer in such derogatory terms to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. He said the Minister was living in the Middle Ages and that after all he was 3-score years and ten old. I do not think there is any Minister in this Government who can list such obvious achievements as can the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I say quite sincerely that there would not be many members in this place - they could be counted on one hand - who would have a better grasp of his subject than has the Minister. It ill behoves the honourable member for Farrer to speak in those terms. If he looks at a couple of well known geriatrics around town, such as a former Minister for Social Services and the former Prime Minister, he will look at people who are not only old but also incompetent and senile.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman cannot pass reflections upon another member. I ask him to bear this in mind.

Mr KEATING:

– I withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker. But the point is that it is unbecoming for members opposite to speak in such derogatory terms of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The honourable member for Farrer said that the Minister had no mandate for this particular piece of legislation and that it was not incorporated in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), but what he fails to understand - I think he understands it but he failed to say it - is that all of what is encompassed within the Federal platform of the Australian Labor Party virtually goes to the people. Even though it may not all be specifically mentioned in the policy speech, it is a series of processes of policy formulation that is carried out on a triennial basis. At the Launceston Conference, to which the Minister referred, all of the details of the principle of this Bill were incorporated in that Federal policy and that is a document that is produced. Unlike the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party has produced a document of policy since it began in 1896 and that is the difference between the Parties.

We are a Party of substance which plans and thinks ahead but the honourable member’s Party lives by day to day decisions. On this basis the Australian people vote for us or vote against us but when they elect us to office we are entitled to incorporate any of that principle outlined in that policy document into legislative form. We have discretion and our parliamentary Party - our Caucus - exercises that discretion from time to time where necessary. On that basis this authority was put together. But what respect has the honourable member or his Party for mandates? What clearer mandate could this Government have than the mandate we have for education or the mandate we have for health? The honourable member is blatantly disregarding the people’s expressed view on 2 major questions that were put at the last election by having the Senate vote against them consistently. When it comes to mandates the honourable member does not regard them as being of any importance anyway. The people’s view does not count with him.

Like every good industry advocate the honourable member for Farrer comes in here with his prepared text and brief every couple of weeks. He talked about all of the mining interests that have their noses out of joint. He said: ‘Why do we refuse a farm in to Mount Isa Mines?’ That was not the subject. It was not because it was Mount Isa Mines. The Government deferred or refused the farm in on the North West Shelf because of the terms under which the farm in was to be agreed to, namely that the Woodside-Burmah consortium was to get 50 per cent of the area which the Mount Isa Mines Co. was to explore. Under this petroleum authority it could be that that same area will revert to this authority. There is one singular difference between this authority and Woodside-Burmah. This authority is owned by the people of Australia and therefore there is an overwhelming case why, if Woodside-Burmah cannot itself explore an area adequately, it should not try to do it on the cheap by grabbing half for itself and letting Mount Isa Mines or any other company do the rest.

We are opposed to the principles of farm in - I think quite rightly opposed to them. Mount Isa Mines might marginally now be an Australian company with a 52 per cent shareholding but it was 49 per cent until recently. It paid over its 3 per cent conscience money and got itself classified as being over 50 per cent Australian but I will say no more about that. What was at issue was the fact that we were not going to allow Woodside-Burmah to get the rake-off for nothing when this other company was doing the work - when Woodside-Burmah knew that the area to be explored would normally be handed back to the designated authority under the Petroleum Submerged Lands Act within a year from now. So what are we to do? Are we to act in an irresponsible way as the honourable member for Farrer would suggest and hand this area over to Woodside-Burmah? Or should we let this area return to the designated authority and belong to this minerals authority which is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia? Obviously the latter course is the only one that could be chosen.

The honourable member for Farrer referred also to the petroleum Press services. What is the petroleum Press services? If one looked at it very hard it would appear to be the hydrocarbons lobby for the banking houses of the city of London. Surely the honourable member can see past those sort of ruses. He understands the size of the reserves that the Woodside-Burmah consortium hold. He realises what we intend to pay it even at domestic prices and the enormous return on capital involved. Why should it be discouraged from coming here? That is just a lot of rubbish and the honourable member knows it. Adverting to the authority itself, in Australia we are in a position at the moment of being reasonably well off in terms of hydro-carbons but that will not always be the case. At the moment oil and natural gas account for 50 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption while coal and hydro-electric power and other types of power account for the rest, but we are not sitting back and saying that we are well off. We are saying that we have enough for the moment but that is not good enough, and that is the whole purpose of the authority. The purpose of the authority is to marshal money for search purposes. Who could argue that a dollar spent by private enterprise on exploration is better than a dollar spent by public enterprise? It is just ridiculous when we have competent Australians employed in both spheres and there is room enough for both. The point is that in the area of energy, which will be a crucial area for any nation and particularly for us as an island continent, we must become self sufficient and instead of handing out money indiscriminately under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Income Tax Act - the tax lurk and the direct subsidy - we intend to apply that money directly to this authority. The honourable member for Farrer said: ‘Well, where did the question of $47m or $50m come from? It was a leak’. That was not right at all. The honourable member for Farrer asked where the figure of $47m or $50m came from. He suggested that it was a leak. That is not right at all. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) said in his second reading speech that matching finance will flow through to the activities of the new Authority following the withdrawal of tax concessions provided by section 77 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the withdrawal of direct subsidy for petroleum search. As the Minister has told the House on a number of occasions, that amounts to $47m to $50m, and that is where the figure comes from. So there is a specific undertaking in the second reading speech that $47m to $50m a year will flow straight into these companies. That is a much more useful way of channelling funds into exploration than the way the previous Government did it.

The Opposition with regularity trots out figures about the number of feet that are drilled and that were drilled by explorers in Australia when it was in Government vis-a-vis when we have been in Government. What matters is what is being drilled in terms of oil, natural gas and energy resources. With most of the major mineral deposits such as coal, bauxite, iron ore, tin, silver, lead, zinc and manganese we find that most of the companies are sitting on large deposits already and some even have others tucked away, for instance, Mount Isa Mines Ltd, which has the Macarthur River deposit, which is a major deposit it has had stached away for years. So the real search is for energy - oil and natural gas. Statistics can always be used to suit any argument, but I shall give the ones that ought to be applied. Last year on off-shore exploration for natural gas and oil in the area of the young sediments, where it can be found, $79m was expended. This year $79m also will be expended. Australia is one of the oldest continents in the world, and everybody knows that you are battling up hill trying to find oil on-shore in Australia. The place to find it is off-shore. So if we are talking about oil exploration, the battle is off-shore, and the money that is spent is spent on off-shore exploration.

The Opposition always talks about the number of feet drilled, but the fallacy of that argument is that the little tin pot companies spawned in the mining boom which were raising money just for paper, which had hopeless prospects, had to put on a show for their shareholders by drilling 100 feet a year or 1,000 feet a year. The figures for drilling were all computed and certain statistics probably show up as the honourable member for Farrer illustrated. But the significant point is that the mining boom blew out about 2 years ago and the drilling programs are winding down. A lot of the small companies which were getting section 77 and section 78 concessions are now in real estate and they are part of the property boom we are trying to get out of at the moment. They shifted all their money across to real estate. When they realised that they were sitting on $2m or $3m that they raised on scrip with a worthless prospect, and when they realised that if they kept drilling such a prospect there would be nothing left in the till and the directors’ fees and the rest of the emoluments would be in jeopardy for the future, they said: ‘We had better get into some productive venture*. So they moved into real estate and the amount of drilling declined rapidly. That is why those figures show up the way they do.

When we talk about participation of a nation in exploration, we can look at the British Government and British Petroleum, France, Italy, Norway, Canada, the Argentine, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, India, Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand, to name but a few. They have all taken national initiatives with money invested by the governments of those countries in oil search and minerals search. In Australia the Commonwealth Oil Refineries was refining oil years ago until the Menzies’ Government sold it in 1952. The Bureau of Mineral Resources was drilling for oil in about 1954, and in fact the rig it was using off-shore was sold to Wapet in that year. But of course the Bureau of Mineral Resources was far too successful. A previous Liberal-Country Party Government quickly put a stop to these activities of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, using the old catch cry of creeping socialism. The Authority which this measure establishes is supposed to be an example of creeping socialism too, and I suppose that in a few minutes we will get another tirade from the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) about socialisation of all industry in Australia and about how the socialist menace is almost upon us. But the Australian people are starting to look beyond that. No one complains that government enterprises in Australia such as the Commonwealth Bank, Trans-Australia Airlines, the Australian National Airlines Commission or Qantas Airways Ltd are out of principle wilh any of the other airlines around the world. No one suggests that there is anything wrong with their being in fact government-owned enterprises. They are fulfilling a service.

The honourable member for Farrer always talks about the special interest groups which are complaining about what the Minister is doing. He mentioned the joint venture by Peko-Wallsend Ltd and EZ Industries Ltd in uranium exploration. Uranium is another energy source which this Government wants to preserve. The former Government would have let Woodside-Burmah export natural gas from the North.West Shelf of Australia. The Opposition criticises us, but when it was in Government it would have allowed the export of natural gas, putting this country at risk. Now it criticises us for conserving uranium because we believe that a decent market has not been developed. Only 2 days ago the

Minister answered a question in the House about the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States letting contracts for the supply of uranium. Of the 56 uranium producers in the world only 3 offered tender prices, because producers realised that they would be selling on a depressed market. Under the previous Government, contracts were signed by Sir Reginald Swartz as Minister for National Development - I believe criminally signed - 3 weeks before the last election to sell uranium at $6 per lb. The Tennessee Valley Authority could get only 3 tenders at $12 per lb, and there were still escalation clauses all the way through. The Peko-EZ contracts are worth $48m, but they could have been worth double that had the company waited and used its head instead of now badgering the Minister to let contracts to the Italian ENI group and to other groups around the world because it said we were missing opportunities. But all we are doing is winning contracts that the smart uranium producers will not bid for. So again we get back to the foolishness and the naivety with which the Opposition approaches the question of energy and power in Australia. It talks about its performance. It has no record of performance.

The Minister has incorporated a couple of other good features in this Bill. One is the morphological concept that the continental shelf is the area of the natural prolongation of the land mass to the edges of the continental margin. Australia has a very wide continental shelf, and we believe that oil is to be found a lot further out in deep water. In this Bill we are asserting our sovereignty and jurisdiction over that area. That is something which the Opposition would not dare do. It would not dare to be so Australian; that would be in for a dig. But the point is that we offer no apologies whatever. We intend to explore, and if the oil is to be found in deep water we will explore for it there. We want to find oil, and find it desperately.

Let us look at the powers of the Authority. They are the normal sort of thing one would expect. It has power to employ its own personnel and equipment in search for petroleum and minerals. It may let contracts for search. It can act in partnership with other companies. It can take up shares in companies. It can accept farm-ins and it can grant farm-outs from the area, which it holds itself. Some of the areas that are returned to the designated authority on the North-West Shelf under the

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act may end up in the hands of this Authority and we could then farm-out and get the benefit ourselves rather than Woodside-Burmah getting it. That benefit would go to the people of Australia. What member of this Parliament, be he a Liberal, Labor or Country Party supporter, would dare say that any return from a farmout should go to Woodside-Burmah before it comes to the people of Australia? I do not think anyone would be game to do that. But that is in fact what the Opposition says in a disguised way. That is the issue in clarity. Under clause 8 (a) the Authority is allowed to assist decent ventures in Australia on advice from the Bureau of Mineral Resources. The purpose of the Bill in toto is to enable the Authority to look at companies that have a reasonable prospect and give them money by way either of direct subsidy or ‘by taking up equity in them. This will allow them to search rather than force them into the hands of a foreign partner, as the Woodside company was forced into the hands of the British Burmah oil group. In that way the Authority can fulfil a very useful purpose. I have the highest commendation for the thought the Minister has put into the Bill. It is a far-reaching piece of legislation, and it is foolish for members of the Opposition to call it ‘creeping socialism’ or to use any of their jargonistic slang about it. It is a decent measure, aimed at making Australia self-sufficient in the area of minerals and energy. It should receive the unanimous support of this House, and it would be a piece of impertinence on the part of members of the Country Party or the Liberal Party to obstruct it in the Senate. If they do, it will be at their own risk. If they want to push the Government to a double dissolution on this issue, they will find that the issue of economic nationalism is so strong that they will be put back where they are now - on the Opposition benches.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– I have been listening with great interest to the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). My one impression is that talk is cheap, but we certainly would not want to pay too much for what we have heard here this afternoon. It is a lot of ideological jargon, with members of the Government Party imagining that their pie in the sky’ philosophy means that the Government can do everything so much better and that private enterprise really does not play a worthwhile role in the community.

The Bill in its present form represents a major upheaval in policy in the minerals and energy field. As such, it is deserving of the closest scrutiny. Because this scrutiny is denied by lack of time, the Bill will not enjoy the quality of debate it normally would attract in this House. It will receive that scrutiny in the Senate. The result of this and similar situations is that the effectiveness of the House of Representatives is diminished. This chamber offers scope for only a brief expression of certain viewpoints. It is ironic that the only chamber that is able to examine legislation closely is accused of frustrating the will of the people.

There is no doubt that an increased government control over the minerals and energy industry was both warranted and inevitable. It was warranted because ready access to minerals and energy at reasonable prices will become an increasingly powerful determinant of economic activity. It was inevitable because the Australian people expect their growing sense of national identity to be expressed in the increased control and ownership of their natural resources. It is the acceptable degree of government intervention that is the issue at stake. I believe that a legitimate insistence on increased Australian equity is a consideration separate from, and distinct from, government participation. One involves the decision of individual Australians to invest in particular enterprises; the other involves the Australian Government exercising such a decision on behalf of all citizens, both disinterested and interested.

I think it reasonable to suppose that most Australians look for national government leadership in the energy crisis, both present and prospective. This crisis is so deep-rooted in its nature and far-reaching in its effects that some direct government interest in the industry is legitimate. Scarce or depleted resources are involved, as are large sums of money to establish new energy programs. Above all, a co-ordinated national approach is required. Such a co-ordinated approach can be implemented effectively with the tools we have. There are clear areas of State and Commonwealth government responsibility. There is a need for greater co-ordination of Commonwealth and State powers and industry planning. This can and should be achieved by a committee which I have suggested previously should be modelled along the lines of the Canadian committee.

The foundation of a united, integrated and consistent set of rules for minerals and energy development is the role of this Government. It has no mandate and no justification to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in high risk mineral and energy ventures. If greater competition is required, the private enterprise can be regulated to achieve it. If more stringent controls are required, then what is needed is a most efficient use of the existing range of powers. There are a number of grounds on which we totally reject the legislation: Firstly, there is no justification for the massive commitment of taxpayers’ money to this area of the economy that cao be and has been effectively served by private initiative. Secondly, adequate powers exist for the regulation of the industry without such massive use of the corporation power. Thirdly, it would be many years before the Corporation would fully play its intended role, and we have not that much time while private enterprise withers in the meantime. Fourthly, the legislation itself is hastily drafted and full of inconsistencies, short cuts, crossed corners, duplications, dangerous precedents and unfettered powers.

What is needed is not another statutory corporation. What is needed is a revival of activity in the energy industry and some consistency of policy in the overall industry. Even if the Authority were approved by this Parliament, it would commence operations in a partial vacuum. Already it is reported that a 45 per cent reduction can be expected this year in the total well footage drilled. The number of active rigs operating is down by one-third on last year’s level. Significant numbers of key personnel are leaving the Austraiian industry to join more attractive operations in other countries. Our present 67 per cent selfsufficiency in petroleum will decline to about 20 per cent in 1980, based on present discoveries.

The present exploration expenditure is heavily deficient in relation to the estimated $200m needed to maintain the satisfactory program. Between September 1970 and September 1973 it is estimated that this country has saved $773m in foreign exchange from our domestic reserves. The Australian consumer should appreciate the benefits to him of our domestic reserves and our present pricing policy. Import parity is now $2.78 per barrel or 8c per gallon above the negotiated price for domestic crude. This has saved the Australian consumer $14lm over the last 3 years.

It could be a number of years before the Authority could begin to play an effective role. On present indications, local and overseas personnel recruitment will be difficult. Rigs are scarce, and many key materials are in short supply. The Authority’s activities doubtless will be interrupted by legal contests over its constitutional validity and scope. It is essential that private initiates be greatly strengthened. Confidence needs to be restored to the industry. I have already mentioned the share market in a previous speech. Two rigs have left the country this year - one to Singapore and one to New Zealand. Two supply boats have moved to the North Sea because of lack of work here.

These initiatives will need to be subject to a strict set of guidelines, and not to a series of contradictory ministerial and prime ministerial announcements. The Authority is empowered to explore for and refine petroleum and subsequently transport and sell it even at the retail level. It has similarly extensive powers in the minerals area. No doubt the Minister’s rationalisation is that it would constitute a dynamic market force, a new competitive element which would be beneficial. However, it will hardly exercise a stimulatory role if it exercises powers and privileges prohibitive to private enterprise. The Bill contains such prohibitive powers and privileges.

Under clause 12 (o) it is empowered to take over existing enterprises on such terms and conditions as the Authority deems fit. This clause relates to any such things as acquisition of shores and is unacceptable as it stands. The intention may be honourable, but the safeguards are not there except for the ultimate constitutional guarantee of just terms.

More specifically, under clauses 43 to 50 of the legislation an act of gazettal and a ratification by a justice of the peace suffice to enable the Authority to explore for and recover petroleum from a declared area. Such a function should be entrusted to a stipendiary magistrate.

Compensation is payable in the form of royalties to the owner and it is by no means clear whether this will constitute total compensation. In assessing compensation, the court shall take into account work done in the area by the Authority. This is not equitable. It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which the Authority explores for petroleum in an area and expends say $50m in an unsuccessful program. In an adjoining area, a company establishes a significant oil find. There is nothing in this legislation stopping the Authority making its own gazettal notice and then prescribing that adjoining area as a petroleum exploration area.

The Authority may then take over the oil find. A signature of a justice of the peace suffices. He could be the local publican, a school teacher, a builder, a banker - anyone.

Compensation, if no agreement is reached, is payable by royalty. However, in determining the level of compensation, the court shall take into account the unsuccessful $50m previously expended by the Authority. That may be useful for the taxpayers, but hardly for the company concerned.

States’ rights are overridden. On the instance previously mentioned, it is not clear whether additional royalties would continue to be payable to the State in addition to the owner. Presumably not, because under clause 41 (2) there is a general provision, subject to repeal, that the Authority is not subject to State taxation. In addition, the Authority may, by fully exercising its powers, override State licensing powers and take over a lease which may have been granted by a State government to an individual on specific terms.

Of course, the massive powers of a Lands Acquisition Act lurk brooding but potent behind these provisions.

Land or assets acquired shall be acquired under that Act, except that apparently the deal shall be carried out by the Corporation rather than by the Minister and Department of Services and Property. Perhaps the Minister may clarify that aspect, if he can. If so, then land acquired is subject to compensation, albeit on the unsatisfactory basis specified in the Lands Acquisition Act. But if petroleum is found on that land compensation is very limited in scope. Presumably, then, the Authority could take over a lease and recover any energy resources and pay only partial compensation for the resources. Because of these powers it is not difficult to imagine the Authority as a marauder, picking the eyes out of the industry and exercising a development role rather than an exploration role.

Its finances are based, on the solid rock of taxpayers’ money. Initial capital is appropriatedinterest free and without apparent limit. Repayment is indefinite. Working capital is also partially or perhaps mainly derived from similar appropriation of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer determines. It is as simple as that. Ail that is needed is the Treasurer’s determination.

The Australian Industry Development Corporation may lend its money and in this context one part of the AIDC legislation empowers the Parliament to appropriate money on vague terms and conditions to the AIDC for national interest projects - that is, not economic projects but projects of national benefit as defined by the Australian Labor Party. There is nothing stopping the AIDC national interest finance being allocated to this Authority.

The link becomes more apparent when it is realised that under clause 15 of the Bill the Minister may give directions to the Authority and the Authority shall comply with those directions. In addition, under clause 39 any loss suffered by the Authority in carrying out this directive shall be reimbursed by the taxpayers. This is a carte blanche for ignorant speculation by one man with taxpayers’ money.

In toto, a frightening picture of policy confusion emerges. The AIDC and this Authority overlap. Many aspects of the legislation are similar, although different Ministers are involved. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) could in theory direct the AIDC to establish a petro-chemical complex and the Minister for Minerals and Energy could independently direct this Authority to establish another.

The Authority may construct pipelines and transport petroleum. Identical powers are given to the Pipeline Authority. It may serve as an agent for resources diplomacy, an identical function, to the one envisaged by the Minister for Overseas Trade for a proposed new Government trading corporation. The Authority is empowered to seek statistical and geological data to formulate policy and work out energy budgets - functions of the Minister’s own Department. A royal commission has just finished hearings on the petroleum industry. Its findings are now prejudged, or at least anticipated.

Perhaps most importantly, this Bill is indicative of a whole new tier of government emerging - -a statutory corporation. These corporations are empowered to operate perhaps even more strongly than Government departments, staffed by people outside the limitations of the Public Service Act. Powerful and semiindependent, they operate under, the loose supervision of the appropriate Minister. Yet Parliament’s control is, at best, tenuous. In this case, it is limited to the approval of sums of money on indefinite terms, and the receipt of annual reports and financial statements. This is not nearly good enough, and it is also not nearly good enough for a range of other corporations and their legislation.

Let me summarise quite clearly our objections. The Authority would have almost unlimited powers in its area with virtually no safeguards. It will have no apparent limit to the size and the use of its umbilical cord to the national exchequer. The Minister has unlimited powers to give it directions, and any losses suffered by the Authority through destroying those directions will be compensated by the taxpayers.

The management consists of a small number of ministerial acquaintances and a quorum of three suffices to make decisions. The Secretary of the Minister’s Department acts as chairman when the Chairman is not there. The Chairman of the gigantic empire is part-time - that is right, part time. States rights are completely overridden. It pays no State taxation. There is no stated means of involving either the States or the industry in its management or activities.

It is given an impossible charter, asking it even to make judgments as to when war is impending. It usurps the role of existing institutions, including even the Minister’s own Department. It has complete powers to pick the eyes out of the market and appropriate the fruits of past enterprise by others. Compensation procedures are completely inequitable. A local justice of the peace suffices to authorise a take over of assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

In summary, it is one of the most inequitable, unreasonable, excessive, hastilyconstructed and shoddily-conceived pieces of legislation we have yet faced on this side of the House. It denies the principles of common justice and seeks to entrust to a small select group the awesome powers of Commonwealth constitutional authority and public revenue. We oppose it outright. We have no choice. I have pointed out my general misgivings as well as my specific objections. The legislation is repugnant to me. We will fight it all the way, to the last ditch.

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– This is a sad and depressing day for Australia. The fact is that the people have to learn from the mouthpieces of business that it is only the Australian Labor Party which will support a worthwhile piece of public enterprise in Australia. I wish that I had had time to look up the history of the formation of the Commonwealth Bank in the days of Andrew Fisher. I believe that that was probably established with Labor majorities both in this House and in the Senate. I wish that I had had time to look up details of the formation of the Australian National Airlines Commission and of Trans-Australia Airlines. Possibly they also were established only by Labor without the support of the Opposition. Probably the same may be said of Qantas and other such bodies.

However, the Australian Country Party, at least, in the past has had some men of vision, some good Australians, who made sure that these pieces of public enterprise remained and were not dismantled as a previous Australian asset in the oil field - the 50 per cent ownership of the Australian people in Commonwealth Oil Refineries - was dismantled in 1952 by the Menzies’ Government. I could continue with a list of occasions when valuable Australian assets have been squandered by the mouthpieces of business in this House. It has all been a tremendous loss to the Australian community. Today we have here an opportunity for an Australian enterprise to be set up on behalf of the Australian people for some wonderful purposes. One of them is to see that the very valuable field of minerals and energy is left, to the greatest extent possible, in the hands of the Australian community and not just in the hands of those who are motivated by private profit - in some cases, people abroad who are motivated only by private profit, not even people in Australia.

What do we find? No real arguments have been put up against this legislation. The emotional word ‘socialism’ has been thrown around this chamber without any attempt by the people using it to try to understand the meaning of the word. In using this word the members of the Opposition hope that it will conjure up some adverse reaction in some minds and, indeed, this is what it does in the minds of those who do not think or read about these matters. ‘Socialism’ for me means a state of affairs where decisions are made for the social ‘ good - the -community good - instead of being promoted, stimulated and encouraged only by private profit motives.

I do not believe that the rate of interest alone should be the arbitrator of all that is done in Australia. I am not against a rate of profit being earned by those in the private sector of the community who have a legitimate right to earn it, but of course there is a real need in Australia for more decision making to be made on criteria other than interest rates. This is what this legislation will provide in the important area of minerals and energy. ‘Social’ is a good word and so is ‘socialism’. I will not be frightened out of using the word by those who are ignorant of it. We want to set up structures in Australia which will result in the decisions relating to this great field of minerals and energy resources being to the largest extent possible motivated by the community good, not the good of some private shareholder or some multi-national corporation although, as I have said before and I will say again, there is a large place for the private sector of the community in the whole of this field. But at the moment we have no area in this field where the Government sector - the representatives of the people and the national interest - is involved in decision making. I repeat that the rectification of such a position is precisely why the Fuel ad Energy Authority Bill has been drafted.

I want to remind honourable members of the second reading speech of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) when he introduced this Bill. He quoted to a great extent what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had said in Japan on foreign ownership and control when he outlined very clearly that there is so much left to be done by the private sector. It is not squeezed out by any manner of means. Even overseas companies have a part to play in this field. Let us look ‘back at the position as it has been under the Liberal Party and Country Party. The fact is that up to the end of 1971, of a total of $843m expended on petroleum exploration, more than $4 19m was made available from the public purse. This fact is conveniently overlooked.

The Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), who preceded me, in the course of his remarks almost said: ‘Where is the money coming from?’ Good heavens. I repeat the figures: To the end of 1971 taxpayers funds to the extent of $4 19m came from the public purse and were expended on petroleum exploration. We do not have to look elsewhere for taxpayers funds in order to finance our Fuel and Energy Authority. The money is already being collected but it is being channelled to private funds. This $41 9m consists of $174m of oil search subsidy payments by the Federal and State governments and the cost to revenue of taxation concessions to the petroleum industry not hitherto published. The estimated cost of the concessions to shareholders, under sections 77a, 77d, 77c and section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of the contribution of share capital to the petroleum exploration companies, for the period from 1958 to 1971, is $1 10m.

The estimated cost of past and future tax exempt dividends, payable by companies which are currently producing petroleum products is an additional $43m. The estimated cost of the special deductions allowed in the period 1966 to 1971 and of the entitlement to future deductions for capital expenditure on exploration by companies which have discovered petroleum is $92m. Thus, to date, the total of taxation concessions granted or available is $245m. These figures do not take into account the cost of potential deductions available to those companies which are not yet producing petroleum or natural gas, but will undoubtedly do so. In aggregate, the contribution of public revenue to oil and natural gas exploration to the end of 1971 is, I repeat, $4 19m or approximately 50 per cent of the total amount expended on oil exploration in Australia.

Here is the scandal: Not one single share has been made available to the Australian Government in return for this huge $419m subsidy. In addition, the free information given by the Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources - information which was mentioned by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) - has been responsible for .the remarkably rapid success of many mining companies, without the slightest recompense or charge to those mining companies. All this has been provided from taxpayers’ funds directly subsidising the pockets of those lucky shareholders who are receivers of it. So we have the introduction to this Parliament of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill which will recycle into petroleum and minerals exploration the moneys which were, in many cases, going to the wrong companies by way of concessions provided under section 77 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. This Authority will also, as from 30 June next when the present Petroleum Search Subsidy- Act expires, be responsible for the expenditure of such moneys.

The legislation also provides for the Authority to act in partnership with other companies either to accept farm-ins or to let out Australian exploration areas on a partnership basis to companies with the necessary technology. I mentioned ‘wrong companies’. To a tremendous extent, the funds of taxpayers - the hard earned funds of individuals - in this country have been going to large multinational corporations. If this Authority is established, we will be able to channel these funds into smaller Australian companies which need them to a far greater extent. No need will exist to subsidise the larger multi-national corporations which still will be able to continue to operate their leases until the terms of those leases run out.

One of the worst features of the present Petroleum Search Subsidy Act has been the extent to which major overseas oil companies operating in Australia have been the recipients of petroleum exploration funds which, fairly, should have gone to smaller Australian search companies. It is interesting that one hears interjections from members of the Liberal and Country Parties when one talks in this way. Are they not interested in these important Australian assets being owned by Australians? Are they not interested in the Australian Government stimulating such investment by Australians?

This Authority will set up the structures not only for public ownership of certain of these areas but also will seek to stimulate private ownership in these areas. It is ridiculous for leaders of the Country Party or spokesmen for the Liberal Party, like the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), to come into this House and merely throw emotional words such as ‘socialism’ around the place without looking at the real purpose of this legislation - the Australian purpose of this Bill - which seeks to ensure that Australians will benefit from Australia’s natural resources.- I contrast this objective with the squandering of $4 19m by past Liberal and Country Party governments. The Liberal and Country Parties must, be the last bastions of conservatism in the world. .

Let us consider those countries which are involved through public enterprises in the field of minerals and energy. The Government of the United Kingdom, as we have heard, has a 50 per cent share in the British Petroleum Co. Other countries which have an involvement of this type are France, Italy - I ask honourable members to think of the ENI company of Italy through which the Italian Government has an involvement in this field; and Italy is not known to be a socialist country such as are those behind the Iron Curtain - Norway, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, India, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines and even our closest neighbour, New Zealand. Yet we find that the conservatives of this country lined up on the benches opposite put forward these erroneous arguments when we attempt to introduce this form of enterprise to this country. They say they oppose every concept in the Bill. As the honourable member for Blaxland has said, we will be happy to go to the Australian people to show just how Australian in outlook members opposite are in opposing the concepts of this Bill.

The honourable member for Farrer displayed rudeness when speaking about the Launceston Conference of the Australian Labor Party. We make no apology for the way in which our decisions are arrived at. The Platform of our Party, setting out our decisions in respect of this matter, is available for everyone. Let us look at the platform resulting from the decisions of the Launceston Conference of the Australian Labor Party. One of the excuses made by the honourable member for Farrer for the Opposition not supporting this Bill was that the Prime Minister did not have some specific sentence in his policy speech about it. But the platform of the Labor Party determined by the Launceston Conference in 1971 contained the policy which prevailed during the election which took place on 2 December 1972. That platform, which was available to everybody, set out clearly for the whole nation the policy intended to be followed by the Australian Labor Party. I quote from page 16 of that document which, under the heading ‘Mineral Resources’, states:

  1. the comprehensive development under Government control of Australia’s mineral resources with emphasis on the need for discovery of new deposits and the direct Commonwealth and State participation in oil and mineral search and exploration throughout Australian land and off-shore territory.

Under the heading ‘Fuel and Energy’, the Platform provides:

  1. Labor will establish a joint Federal/State Fuel and Energy Commission-

This was later changed to meet constitutional requirements and we propose to set that body up through this Parliament. We hope to get State participation in this proposal. I cannot believe that State parliamentarians, even Liberal and Country Party State parliamentarians, will be so small in their Australianism that they will not support the concept of this Bill. Our policy provides for that Commission: to devise and implement an integrated and co-ordinated national fuel and energy policy.

The commission will

  1. regulate the exploration, development, transportation, marketing and the use of oil, natural gas, coal, fissionable materials and generative water,
  2. prevent depletion of fuel and energy resources needed to match Australian requirements in mineral processing, general industry and national development, and
  3. guard the ecology and environment from pollution by fuel extraction and energy generation.

Later, again under the heading ‘Fuel and Energy’ - and this policy was available for all Australia to see at the time of the last House of Representatives election; yet Opposition members put up the spurious argument that these matters were not in our policy speech - the Platform provides:

Labor will work for the enrichment of Australian uranium resources in plants which are located in Australia and which have at least a majority Australian control of equity and policy.

That is the policy worked out by the due processes of the Labor Party, from the grassroots. It is a policy on which we are proud to fight elections and for which we have a mandate. This Bill sets out, as the culmination of that mandate, to implement that policy. There is no apology from me or from any of my colleagues for the way that we have put that policy to the people. The people have supported us. We bring this Bill before the Parliament so that that policy may be consummated.

The Leader of the Country Party unfortunately had not done sufficient homework even to recognise that an important amendment will be incorporated in this legislation. I am not ashamed to say that I - I suppose more than anybody else - am responsible for that amendment. I am grateful for the wholehearted support of the Minister for Minerals and Energy and also to my colleagues in the parliamentary Labor Party for agreeing to this amendment. It is proposed, as those who, unlike the Leader of the Country Party, have done their homework will know, that the Chairman of the Authority will be a full-time Chairman. I have great hopes that this man will be one cf the top mining men in this country. This job will be a great and important one.

I thank the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who is seeking to interject, for reminding me that as a result of a number of consultations that I have had with top mining people in Australia I know that they are wholeheartedly behind a concept of this type. I am. not referring merely to the fact that the Chairman of the Authority should be a full-time Chairman and a man with mining experience but to the concept of this Bill which seeks tq ensure that Australia’s national interest isproperly served. These people realise that there is still a large part to be played by the private sector in this area. They realise also the scandal of the expenditure of $4 19m of taxpayers’ funds in this industry with not one share of ownership in our resources belonging to the Australian people. They recognise that structures similar to that proposed by this legislation exist in every other comparable country. I have listed the number of countries in which this sort of public structure already exists.

In conclusion I point out that we do have an energy crisis. We do have a Government which, fortunately, is planning, and has planned, for that crisis. But it is important that we have a fuel and energy authority to be the structure to be responsible for the Australian national interest in the whole of this field. I am proud to have taken part in this debate. I expect, from what we have heard already from the mouthpieces of business, that this Bill will have problems in the Senate. But it will be to the shame of the Liberal and Country Parties if these problems do raise their ugly heads in the Senate. I will be proud to go out on to the hustings to tell the Australian people that $4 19m of their funds has been squandered without one share being offered to them and that when we attempted to do something about that situation by way of the Bill now before us the mouthpieces of business stopped us from doing so.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said over and over again that he wished he had time to look at the formation of enterprises such as the Commonwealth Bank, TransAustralia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. Having heard what the honourable member said, we would wish that the honourable member had more time to put into his speech. The fact that he did not have enough time to research thoroughly his own speech indicates the rush with which the Bill was introduced and forced into the House and the rush with which it is going to be guillotined.

Mr Hurford:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented. Am I entitled to raise this matter at this stage?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No. The honourable member will have to wait until after the honourable member for Stirling finishes his speech. He can then make his personal explanation.

Mr VINER:

– It is interesting to see that the honourable member is so sensitive to what is so obvious to honourable members on this side of the House. The honourable member went on to talk about, among other things, the amount of $4 19m which has been invested by the Australian Government for which, he says, the Australian Government has not got one share in return. The equation used by the honourable member, the Government and the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) is all wrong. They cannot balance the equation because they do not know what it is. It is a totally wrong approach to say that the Australian Government has financed the oil exploration and development industry to the tune of $419m and has not got one share in return. The Australian people have to realise that the true equation can be determined only when we balance against that cost first and foremost a 68 per cent self sufficiency in local crude oil supplies. That is not a matter which has been mentioned by anyone on the Government side as being part of the equation. Yet, this is the most important product of the investment of $419m that has come to the Australian people.

The present Government relies on this percentage of self sufficiency, which has resulted from incentives and concessions given by the former Government over 23 years of office and which has enabled the Australian community to be in the happy position that it is in today in the face of the world energy crisis. Without this incentive and investment Australia would be in a sorry position now. It would be in the same position as are countries in western Europe which are being held at the point of a gun by the gun boat diplomacy of the Arab oil producing nations. So, firstly, there is self sufficiency in the industry. Secondly, royalties are paid to the Australian Government and to the States which are lucky enough to have oil producing areas. My own State of Western Australia is one of those States. The amount that has been provided by way of royalties over the last 10 years is $82,338,000. That is a figure that is not mentioned by the Minister in his equation.

On top of that, a tax from the profits of the oil producing companies is paid into Consolidated revenue. In addition, we should not forget that the domestic price for Australian local crude oil is based upon the price of crude which was set in 1968 and which carries forward until 1975. As a result, Australia will have the benefit of a price that is a little more than $2 a barrel compared with a world price which is much higher. The estimated benefit or revenue forgone by the oil producers which has come from this price for locally produced domestic crude oil has run into a figure of $ 132.6m over the last 3 years. This is a benefit which the Australian people have obtained by having a 68 per cent self sufficiency in oil production, thereby not having to import crude from overseas.

Also there must be put into the equation against the $41 9m, which is so often mentioned by the Government, the technology, exploration and management skills which have been introduced into Australia as well as the establishment of the oil and gas industry itself and all the service industries which support the petroleum exploration and development industry throughout Australia. All these things must be put into this equation. It is not worth a point of debate for supporters of the Government continuously to say: ‘Well, $419m has been put in by the Australian Government and not one share in any company has the Government received in return’.

The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) made the same sort of speech today as we have heard him make on many occasions. I was rather intrigued to hear him say, on behalf of the Government, that the Government is opposed to farm-ins because this Bill, which the Opposition will oppose in this place and in the Senate, gives authority to the proposed National Petroleum and Minerals Authority to farm-in. If the Government is so blindly opposed to farm-ins why does it give this power to the Authority to do the very thing which it denies to private enterprise? At a time when we get so much ideological paranoia and emotional nationalism thrown around this chamber and the nation we need to look at the background against which we we are debating this Bill. It is a background of an undoubted world energy crisis. This is not something that is unknown to the industry or which has just come in overnight. Papers presented at the conference of the Australian Petroleum Explorers Association held in Canberra of March of this year - and this was a conference which the Minister refused to attend - forecast a forthcoming world energy crunch. The industry was well aware of it and wanted to cope with it for Australia and on an international basis.

It is no good the present Government, in a fit of self satisfied smugness, telling the Australian people that they have no fear of petrol rationing or that Australia has 68 per cent self sufficiency. For example, the honourable member for Blaxland said that we should not worry about what we have to import from overseas because only 18 per cent of Australia’s requirements comes from the Middle Eastern countries and 12 per cent comes from Indonesia which is a good friend of ours. The world energy crisis, into which the Arab oil producing nations have plunged the world, will surely reach Australia’s shores.

We have seen the first ripple of this on the coast of Western Australia in the Pilbara iron ore industries. A report in this morning’s Press indicated that a telex message had been sent by the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd to the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) pointing out that the Japanese importers of iron ore would require Australia to provide bunkering fuel for the iron ore carriers if Australia wanted to export its iron ore. If that bunkering fuel does not become available there will be widespread unemployment in Pilbara. What must be realised, and what the Government must spell out to the people of Australia, is that energy resources are part of international trade. If Australia is to retain Japan as its major trading partner, if Australia is to export not only iron ore but also the various other raw materials upon which Japan depends for its industrial expansion, and if Australia is to be able to import those things which the Government said to the people with the tariff cut of 25 per cent across the board could be imported in order to defeat inflation by lowering the consumer price structure in Australia, then Japan must have adequate sources of energy supplies. It does not have them itself. It does not have any great oil or gas producing fields or any great resources of coal. It must depend on the rest of the world to supply it. If we are to trade with Japan, we must look at the international role of oil, natural gas and coal as trading commodities; we must look at the importance of that role to Australia.

All the smugness that comes from the Government benches at this time and all the paranoia about foreign ownership will be worth nothing to Australia when we find that the world recession, which must come in the face of the Arab gunboat oil diplomacy, not only will ripple upon our shores but will come with a tidal wave. We will find ourselves in a state of recession as much as Western Europe, Japan and the United States will. Australians must be aware of this if they are to understand the full implications of the policies of the present Government and of the Minister. The Minister in charge of this vital area of Australian policy - minerals and energy - has been a disaster for the people. He has put this great industry - not only of petroleum but also of minerals - back a decade. Anybody who knows anything about these industries knows that that loss cannot be recovered in a year. It cannot be recovered by an amount of $50m with which the Minister has said he will finance this Petroleum and Minerals Authority if this legislation is put on to the statute book. Fifty million dollars compared with what is required to maintain a 70 per cent self-sufficiency in Australia is no more than a drop in the bucket. It is no more than a spit in the eye to Australia. It will not promote the amount of exploration or development that is required to maintain the present degree of self-sufficiency until the year 1980 and beyond.

What is needed is a government which is prepared to mobilise all the overseas and Australian capital, all the overseas and Australian risk money, all the overseas and Australian technology, all the overseas and Australian exploration and management skills that can be brought into Australia. To speak about foreign capital in the way in which the Government has spoken about it is to deny to Australia the benefits that can come from an international industry. It must be recognised that the oil and minerals industry is an international industry. Until we realise that we are part of the international trade in these materials, Australia will get further and further behind in the energy race. The unfortunate thing is that, in the Minister in charge of these vital areas, the Government has sought to clothe its policies with respectability and that, by the Minister, the Government is lulling the people into a position of complacency.

If we look at what this policy area under this Minister has done to the Australian economy, we realise that the Minister personifies the ultimate reactionary. In Australia we live in a global village. That is the way in which the world is being looked at today - not in terms of economic isolation, which is the policy of this Government. The Minister in charge of this area is like the village storekeeper who does not realise that the world has grown larger than his little store. He refuses to sell the perishable commodities on his shelf in case he might want them later. He says: “Therefore we have to conserve it’ and deludes himself that they are not perishables. In conserving it he finds that indeed it is perishable because the world has overtaken him and no longer requires what he has on his shelf. This is the mark of the ultimate reactionary. His policies fly in the face of world history in this area. By setting up this Authority he will not bring Australia into a bright new era; he will take Australia back into the dark past.

When the honourable member for Adelaide and the honourable member for Blaxland talk about the national corporations which are set up in different forms by other countries, they need to look at exactly what the form of those corporations is and exactly what they do. In his second reading speech the Minister referred to the British Petroleum Co. British Petroleum is a company in which the British Government owns a certain proportion of the shares. British Petroleum is one of the multinationals which this Government condemns. It certainly is an arm of British Government policy because oil supplies are vital to the fate of Britain. So British Petroleum explores not only in the North Sea but also off-shore from and onshore in Australia. It goes to Alaska and there it finds one of the world’s largest oilfields, lt is part of the internationalisation of the industry. The French company, Total, does exactly the same. It comes to Australia.

I suggest that honourable members on the Government side ought to look at the formation of the Canadian Development Corporation, which also is a company. It has formed Pan-Arctic Oil in co-operation with private industry. Industry and the Canadian Development Corporation hold shares in this new company. But the mark of all these corporations is that they operate within this industry on exactly the same basis as all other companies exploring throughout the world. They must go to a country or a State and apply for licences to explore and develop in exactly the same way as anyone else does. But the Bill presently before the House flies in the face of all that. It is no good the Minister trying to draw some succour from the analogies he uses. In the limited time that will be available in the Committee stage, I will be able to point out how the Authority proposed in this Bill is fundamentally different from these national corporations that have been used in justification.

We can come closer to our own shores and refer to Pertamina, the Indonesian oil exploration and development company. Indonesia is a classic example of a country which has a national petroleum exploration and development corporation that goes into partnership with the multinationals which this Government condemns. Today Pertamina is being held up to the world as an example of what can be done by a nation which is not afraid of the multinationals and which will do what I have said - that is, mobilise the international risk capital that is available, mobilise the technology that is available in the world and mobilise the exploration and management skills that are available. We should bring them into this country, certainly on the basis of guidelines which they know and which are set down because they are regarded by the Government as being what is required for the benefit of the nation. Then the country can operate in a true partnership. Then it can maintain these vital energy resources that are required by any Western nation today in order to survive. But condemn them, deny them an opportunity to use this risk money, this technology and these skills that they have and we deny an opportunity to the people of this country to live the life that they are used tq in a world which today is dependent upon energy. The Australian people need to realise that this Government is denying to them the opportunity to sustain their way of life in an, energy hungry world. By 1980, Australia’s reserves, without an accelerated rate of exploration, will be run down to about 20 per cent or 25 per cent of Australia’s needs. Let us then see what will happen when we are dependent upon the rest of the world for these supplies; see what will happen to Australia when it is in a position to have the gun pointed at it as- it has been pointed at’ Japan, Western Europe and the United States of America. This Bill denies everything that Australia needs to maintain its own position in the energy race.

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

Mr HURFORD (Adelaide)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD:

– I do. During the course of his speech the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) said that I had implied during my speech that I did not have time to prepare it. I point out that it was only during the previous speech that we learnt that the Opposition was opposing this Bill. I made analogies concerning Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian National Airlines, which runs Trans-Australia Airlines, and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. What I said was that at that stage I did not have time to research whether the establishment of those bodies, too, had been opposed by the Opposition in this Parliament.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I rise to support the Bill. I commend the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) and the Government. By this Bill, after almost a quarter of a century of- complete abdication of responsibility by the previous Government, for the first time this country will have, to its credit, a national fuel, energy and minerals authority. I listened attentively to Opposition speeches. One salient thesis contained in this Bill which members of the Opposition should understand but which they fail to realise is that a national problem demands national policies. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) and his cohorts behind him persisted with their usual crop of futuile cliches. Believe it or not the honourable member for Farrer said that there is one simple choice facing this country at this time and that is to hand over all exploration and the superintendence of this country’s fuel and mineral resources, lock, stock and barrel, to private enterprise. It is incredible in the world of today that anybody could put such a futile proposition. I will not cull over what members on this side of the House have already said, but I should like to quote from a recent publication of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It states:

As governments have sought greater control over the natural resources of their countries, there has emerged a . new form of legal relationship between the governments of oil producing countries and the bil companies. Instead of granting concessions to the oil. companies with the right to explore for and to exploit petroleum on their own account, governments have vested these rights in their own national oil companies which have then entered into arrangements with the oil companies whereby the latter act as contractors, or operators, for the national oil company. These arrangement are to be distinguished from conventional contractural agreements in which the contractor is rewarded for his services by stipulated payments: His reward, and the scale of his reward, is entirely dependent upon the success of the venture; the contractor is required either to finance, or to introduce third parties to finance, the national oil company’s share of development capital and operating costs; and the national oil company participates in the formulation of operating programmes and budgets.

What has happened throughout the world, whether in Britain, France or Italy, is that since the middle 1950s governments have been exercising the superintendence of their fuel and mineral resources. However, it was not long ago in the House when the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, the honourable member for Farrer, was castigating the Minister for Minerals and Energy and was referring to a Treasury White Paper dealing with world energy resources. He said:

The Prime Minister seems to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the Minister’s oft repeated statement about the impending energy crisis. This tale is so far from the truth that the Treasury had to put out a special booklet refuting these theories in what for the Public Service are very strong words. This booklet gives the lie completely to the Minister’s statement. For example, it points out that whilst known world deposits of oil are sufficient for only 31 years usage at current rates, or 20 years’ usage assuming the past rate of exponential growth is maintained, undoubtedly much more oil will be discovered.

He concludes with this sweeping generalisation:

If there is a problem it is a political and a price problem.

I make one brief observation: Tragically for mankind, each country is not self-sufficient. If the entire reserves of the world could be pooled and could be equally apportioned, there would perhaps be some substance in the contention of the honourable member for Farrer but such a contention is both irresponsible and politically naive.

Let us look at the position. What are Australia’s reserves and needs? The total known recoverable reserves of oil are 1,560 million barrels; of natural gas liquids, 800 million barrels; of hydro-carbon liquids, 2,350 million barrels; and of natural gas, 38 trillion cubic feet. The recent report by the Australian Academy of Science titled ‘Solar Energy Research in Australia’ on the question of oil and natural gas said:

Despite the large expenditure on searching for oil and the useful finds which have been made in Australia, our known oil reserves without imports are inadequate for even a decade. Unless a major field is discovered we will be faced with expanding our imports of oil at an ever increasing rate and at ever increasing prices caused by the world shortage, distribution problems and political actions. Our natural gas reserves, while large, cannot satisfy all our energy demands, particularly for transportation. It is also likely that natural gas prices will rise because of the world shortage.

It has been said before and I reiterate that it is remarkable that when in government, the Opposition appropriated some $400m of taxpayers’ money for which it could not show lc of equity. It is a national scandal. If we look at the petroleum subsidies that were dished out last October we find that Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd was granted $175,948; West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd, $108,840; Esso Exploration and Production Australia, Inc., $163,050; and, again West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd received a sum of $264,240. Wapet which happens to be controlled by the Caltex company, also benefited. So we find that taxpayers’ money was being dished out to multi-national corporations for which we could not show lc of equity.

It is remarkable that honourable members opposite can persist with exactly the same philosophy as has proved disastrous throughout the world. They again want to perpetuate this policy and inflict it on this country. Honourable members opposite want to persist with a policy which would cause the same problems as exist in the United States. I have referred to this matter before and I should like to mention it again. America is in precisely the problem she is in today because she lacks a national fuel policy. A recent study in the United States showed that there are some 44 federal agencies which directly administer energy problems and 20 more which indirectly influence energy matters. These 64 agencies are scattered throughout 9 Cabinet departments, 14 independent agencies and the executive office of the President. If we take a breakdown of who, in fact controls the vast energy resources of the United States we obtain an intriguing result. We find that 84 per cent of the United States refinery capacity, 72 per cent of its natural gas capacity, 20 per cent of its coal production and 50 per cent of its uranium reserves are controlled by multinational corporations in the United States. It seems deplorable to me that we - and the public - should be induced to follow this disastrous policy. What has happened in the United States when faced with a world energy crisis particularly in petroleum and natural gas, and when that country may be forced to convert to coal is that many if its mines have run down. If it has to revamp those mines it will take up to 5 years and if it has to convert back to strip mining it will take up to at least 18 months, so the lead time to catch up could be equally disastrous.

I want to make some reference to just how serious the international situation is. Where I part with the honourable member for Farrer is that there is beyond any question a world energy crisis. It is immaterial whether it stems from a question of quantum, from the need for a planned development or from the need for an international rationalisation in terms of distribution of resources, particularly crude oil. It is a fact; we will have to adjust our policies accordingly, and this Government’s policies are oriented towards that. If we look at the world situation we find that oil consumption is rising. In 1972 world oil consumption was 2,590 million tons - 8 per cent more than in the previous year - but production rose by only 5.4 per cent. The rising prices stemmed directly from an imbalance between potential sources and uses of oil. On the basis of past trends, total energy demand will double between the 1970s and 1985 and total United States energy consumption between 1970 and 1985 is estimated to double from 33 million to 63 million barrels per day. If we take the European Economic Community, the consumption for the same period will rise by 93 per cent, and the consumption in Japan will rise by 156 per cent.

Regrettably, oil reserves are not distributed evenly among all nations, nor is their thirst for it. More than 63 per cent of the total world power petroleum resources are located in the Middle East and that constitutes some 50 million metric tons or 60 per cent of world recoverable reserves. The United States has 6 per cent of the world reserves and socialist countries have 13 per cent. If we look at the statistics on the dependency on oil as a prime energy resource we find that in Western Europe it is 62 per cent, in the United States 44 per cent and in Japan 76 per cent. If we look at the demand, the imbalance between countries is equally striking. With 6 per cent of the world population the United States accounts for one-third of global oil consumption; it consumed 750 million tons last year and in fact it produced only 500 million tons. In 1970 the United States obtained less than 3 per cent of its oil from the Middle East, by 1972 it had risen to 15 per cent and it is estimated by 1980 to rise to 35 per cent. Western Europe last year consumed 650 million tons but produced less than 25 million tons.

I agree with the honourable member for Stifling that Japan is in an even worse position. If any Minister is doing anything to ease the burden on the Japanese Government and the people it is the current Minister for Minerals and Energy, much to his credit. Japan at the moment produces practically no oil at all but uses 4.6 million barrels a day and, in effect, is wholly dependent on imported oil to fuel its industry. Japan consumes 250 million tons per annum and about 85 per cent of this oil comes from the Middle East, half of that coming from Iran. To put it in its real perspective I want to give some figures to the House which ought to bring home to the Opposition just how crucial the situation is. If we take the world projected rates of consumption figures to the year 2000, the world total oil consumption in 1972 was 19.3 billion barrels. If the present rates of consumption are maintained requirements will reach 64.3 billion barrels per annum. At the moment the world consumption of natural gas is about 38 trillion cubic feet. By the year 2,000 it will reach a consumption level of 1 30 trillion cubic feet.

In regard to coal, the world total consumption in oil was 1,698 million tons of oil equivalent, which equals 2,440 million tons of coal. By the year 2000 we will require 8,100 million tons per year. The world energy consumption will increase over the present decade from 4,920 million metric tons of oil equivalent. By the year 2000 the world can expect a demand rate of 17,000 million metric tons oil equivalent. By 1980 oil will claim some 48 per cent, gas some 20 per cent, coal some 25 per cent, and the remainder will be chewed up by way of hydro and nuclear power.

This Bill purports to do nothing more than vest in the national Government the superintendence for our fuel, energy and mineral resources, and if ever there was a time when it was needed it is now and in the next two to three decades at least. I want to quote briefly from a book called ‘The Great Big Australian Takeover Book’ by Gordon McCarthy whose summary in dealing with resources and management is, I think, very apposite to this debate. This is what he has to say:

The non-renewable resources of Australia consist of natural materials and energy sources which have been created by nature and which cannot be replaced within the lifespan of the human species on earth. Until proven sources of perfect substitutes for these non-renewable resources have been discovered in natural form or through technical synthesis, they should be husbanded as if they were irreplaceable and essential to man during his lifetime on earth.

The knowledge needed to make possible the better achievement of Australia’s goals is largely controlled by foreign companies that claim the right to exploit that knowledge in Australia as they see fit. Australia should strive to develop its own scientific and technical knowledge to enable it to maintain its defence and welfare standards.

Financial resources are a measure of buying power alone and do nothing to benefit the population unless they are combined with physical resources and human skills. The financial resources of Australia must be controlled for the achievement of the nations’ goals. Unrestricted financial power can distort the needs of the population in monetary terms and distort the real benefits it could enjoy.

Land in its natural state is of great value for the perpetuation of the millions of species from which man continues to learn so much about the earth. Many scientific and technical discoveries have been made by man through his study of species in their natural habitat. The benefits of short-term policies should never be allowed to obscure the real value of irreplaceable natural vegetation and the species that live in it.

Finally, he had this to say:

The organizations and processes created to achieve Australia’s goals will primarily determine whether the goals are in fact achieved. There must be clear distinction between policy and execution, between the people who set goals and those who are responsible for achieving them. A global or national view must be taken of all matters that affect the total population, and there must be no variation of national plans at the local level without reference to the national policy board.

Future historians will almost certainly view the weeks following 6 October 1973 as a period of extraordinary economic changes in the world - a revolution in fact heralding an awakening by some of the previously under-developed, under-privileged, have-not nations to the fact that they may after all be possessors of the world’s most sought after materials, these basic materials being essential to many of the affluent nations if they are to maintain their high standards of living. It is my belief that, for the first time, the people of this nation will have to realise that the days of cheap fuel in terms of oil are rapidly dwindling - they are almost over - and it will not be long before the price of crude oil will be at least $10 a barrel.

If it was not for the persistency of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, who is at the table, I have no doubt at all that the multi-national corporations finally would have got the contract - they got the contract for the petrochemical plant at Redcliffs in South Australia - and there would not have been a conversion level in terms of liquid petroleum gas to motor spirit. It certainly gives the lie to the accusation by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) that the Government has not done sufficient in terms of converting our LPG to motor spirit. If it had been left to the Opposition, no conversion level would have been forced upon the multi-national corporations that control Redcliffs in South Australia.

Let me conclude by saying that there are some startling lessons to be learnt in Australia. Australia is one of the few highly industrialised countries that are self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient in most of the materials needed by industry. If, however, we follow those we have endeavoured to copy in the past, such as Great Britain and the United States, in mindlessly plundering our raw materials or, worse, allowing others to do it for us, we deserve to sink to the wretched position in which those other countries now find themselves. A majority of highly industrialised countries have little more than their technology to trade for the raw materials that they desperately need, as we all know. Technology no longer recognises national boundaries and normally goes to the highest bidder. We have a sacred duty to see that our patrimony is not taken from us by handing over exploration to others. Once the natural gas, iron ore or bauxite has gone to fuel the economies of others, does anyone think that our erstwhile friends will give us a second thought? I doubt that they will. They will be off somewhere else, trying to mesmerise some other poor unfortunate nation into handing over its resources at below world market prices. It will be our turn to sink back to the sand and camel economy. I commend the Minister; I commend the Government: and I commend the Bill.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) sent out a message loud and clear this morning, asking honourable members to keep discussion of the business program of the House as short as possible. I did not propose to speak on this Bill. However, when one listens to a debate and hears statement after statement being made to try to justify what is perhaps the most extreme form or the quintessence of the socialism and regimentation which the Government is inflicting on this country, and when it affects the industries in one’s own electorate, one must have something to say. Hence I would like to make a brief contribution to this debate.

Over the week-end the people of Australia staggered even the greatest optimists. We on this side of the House were confident that the people would express an opinion that would be favourable to us. Gallup polls were blasted high, wide and handsome. No one believed that there would be such a huge expression of opinion as there was against this Government - not against the 2 questions that were put before the people. Let us consider this point: Would it not be the most natural thing in the world for the great mass of Australians to support a Bill which was alleged to control prices? But there was a great fear among the people and they made a wonderful evaluation of the sort of socialism and extreme regimentation that the Government is introducing into this nation, as is typified clearly and precisely in the Bill before the House. This is what the Australian people voted against. If we can get the Government to the polls there will be an even clearer definition of the people’s evaluation of what the Government is doing.

Let me mention very briefly one or two of the dangers that are inherent in this Bill. There would not be a man in this House who would not be afraid of our resources being expended to a point which would bring this country into danger. If this country is self-sufficient in natural resources at the moment, it is purely a temporary situation and it is due to the work of the previous Government. Careful planning, co-operation and confidence between Government and industry made Australia’s mining industry the envy of the whole world. I have had practical experience. I was able to visit some of the mining operations in the mid-west of the United States. The people there were generous in their comments. They said that Australia had perhaps the most efficient mining industry in the world.

Let us get down to realities and look for some example of what has happened in the opposite direction. I reiterate - I have said this time and time again in this House - that the most devastating example of Government interference to an absolutely unacceptable degree in private enterprise has been in the mining industry. This industry demands, I suppose more than any other industry, an expertise and a balance between Government co-operation, private ownership and community control. This concept was upset and blasted asunder when the Government of Chile tried to nationalise the great copper mining industry in that country. What happened there? It was a disaster and tragedy - not for the great mining companies, which pulled up stakes and went and operated elsewhere, but for the small operators. We have criticised the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). We have criticised him rather severely and perhaps a little too much, because after all he is only trying to put into effect the irresponsible and unacceptable type of extreme socialism which his Government espouses.

I agree with the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) about citing the Launceston Conference as though it were some great happening; that the heavens opened and the Lord descended on the island of Tasmania and gave forth great edicts through the Australian Labor Party. Once again let me commend the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who was courageous enough to declare that the policies formulated at the Launceston Conference would be devastating, particularly to people in rural areas. When he appeared on the television program ‘This Day Tonight’ he clearly said that many marginal seats held by ALP members in rural areas would be lost. How prophetic those words will prove when we finally get the Government to the polls.

The big companies can look after themselves. The centre of my electorate is Mount Isa. I do not think there is a person in that city who does not know that the less a person is privileged the more I will raise my voice on his behalf. I have had a procession into my office of the small gougers and the small copper producers whose hopes have been blasted once and for all. These people do not know where to turn. They are saying to me: ‘For God’s sake, Bob; you people might have been bad enough, but get rid of this mob and give us some sort of a chance to revive this industry. It is frozen. It is dead’. That is exactly what the small producer, the battler, is saying. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

I have read that the Australian Labor Party is forming a party of ten to visit uranium leases. Why the uranium leases? Let this great group of experts from the ALP go to every mining field, get into the canteens and talk to the miners themselves. Never mind about the big executives. I know what will happen. The members of this party will be wined and dined by the managements. Let them get among the miners themselves and learn just how they feel about the Government, its regimentation and the way it has crippled and ruined this magnificent industry.

Finally, I refer to the matter of energy. We have reached a most critical state internationally. This country is a little better off than most other countries - not because of what this Government has done but, I repeat, because of the wise planning by the previous Government and the co-operation between it, industry management and, if you like, the unions. The contribution of the unions has been tremendous. I commend the Trades and Labor Council in Mount Isa as an example to any group of unionists in all of Australia. It had to get rid of Mr Mackie and one or two people in this House who are now Ministers and who supported him and raised funds to keep going in Mount Isa a crippling and cruel strike from which the people of that city staggered and are still trying to recover. It was triggered off by overseas and international disrupters, and everyone knows that. Let them not try it again. Mount lsa has a Trades and Labour Council which is as militant as any in Australia. It will fight for the rights of its workers, but it will not be dominated by foreign ideologies.

Let me get back to this matter of energy. We know, of course, that anyone who has coal interests at the moment is planning to sell as much coal as he can as quickly as he can because the international scene is not encouraging. We have never given much thought to a most important subject. A group of us recently had the tremendous advantage of seeing something of what is happening in the area of solar energy. I think it is well known to anyone who has the remotest interest in the energy situation that valuable experimentation is going on in southern Arizona in relation to solar energy. The Government is creating a situation in which people with expertise are leaving this country. They are getting out as quickly as they possibly can and are looking for jobs in any country but Australia. Australia was once the country to which geologists, great international geophysicists and the most brilliant men in the mining industry came. It was the Mecca for men in the mining industry. Now they cannot get away fast enough. They know as well as we do that we will be back in office after May or June, or whenever an election is held. That is why they are trying to produce as much disruption as possible. How long will it take us to bring the industry back to a reasonable situation? It will be difficult, but we will do it. Be assured of that. We would do well at least to find out what is happening in the field of solar energy. Having had the opportunity to hear one of the greatest authorities in the world outline the possibilities, I think it is the energy of the future. What is more, it is a natural energy.

That is my brief contribution. As one who has lived all his life in a mining environment, I want to stress again the desolation, the despair, the uncertainty, and the insecurity of the little man in those areas. The Bill is a monstrosity, a disaster and it embodies perhaps the most extreme form of regimentation of industry we have had inflicted on us. As my leader has said, we will fight it to the last ditch. Our colleagues will do the same. Let us get rid of it and be ready to look back on it as a bad memory and a nightmare in the mining industry.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– The honourable member for Kennedy, who has just sat down, is well known to members of this House as a member who speaks with 2 voices. He speaks in this Parliament with a reactionary voice, but when he goes to his electorate, particularly to Mount Isa, he is known to speak in favour of socialism. He has been able to get away with it for some time, but it is an old saying that one can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but one cannot fool all the people all the time. In the not too distant future, when some members on this side find time to go to his electorate, they might well expose him.

He mentioned a short time ago in his address to the House on this important Bill what had happened in Chile when the Chilean Government took over the copper mines there. However, he did not tell the House of the exorbitant profits made by the multi-national organisations that owned and controlled the mines in Chile, and of the events that caused the people of Chile, during the term of the late Mr Allende, to take control of the natural resources of the country so that those downtrodden people who had been shockingly exploited over the years in working virtually for peanuts for the benefit of Uncle Sam would receive justice. He did not say that an industrial strike occurred in his electorate at Mount Isa some years ago at a time when the profits of the Mount Isa mines bad reached an all-time high. When the employees responsible for the accumulation of high profits asked for their share of the cake, strong action was taken against them and they were virtually locked out. The reactionary Queensland Government of the day passed laws that stunned the Australian people and were withdrawn from the statute book after a very brief period of existence. One trade union man was even prevented from returning to Mount Isa to visit his wife and children.

Mr Nixon:

– It was a communist stunt, and you know it.

Mr JAMES:

– We did not hear the voice of the. honourable member for Kennedy being raised against that injustice. The Communist Party has not been outlawed in this country. It is a political party which the people of Australia said time and time again should not be outlawed, otherwise we would not be a true democracy.

Mr Lloyd:

– Does that make it good?

Mr JAMES:

– I do not support it, but I stick out for justice. The honourable member for Kennedy is the Janus-like member of this House who shows, through his political activities, 2 faces. I support the Bill, and I must place on the records of the Parliament my great admiration for the honesty and forthrightness of the honourable member for Cunningham, the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). This is one of the most progressive steps that have taken place in this Parliament in more than 2 decades. The Australian people will have an equity in a Godgiven resource. This comes close to my heart, as I was reared on the northern coalfields of New South Wales. Old coalminers speak today of the millions of tons of coal lost for all time by the rip-out methods of private enterprise in years gone by. The coal was ripped out of the ground by the quickest possible method for the highest possible profit to the shareholders, but to the detriment of this and future generations. Every decent member of this Parliament should find this deplorable.

We protect our forests, and we should protect our natural resources in the same way. One cannot take an axe to the bush today to chop down trees at random. The forests are protected by progressive governments which have introduced forestry control with forestry departments administered by the States. The same situation should exist with our natural resources, and it will exist under a Labor administration and under the control of the Minister now at the table. We have been reminded that more than $400m of the Australian taxpayers’ money has been spent in the past On exploration for oil and petroleum products without our having a share in it. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) is a lawyer and can usually speak on any subject, and on either side of that subject. He has been trained to do that as part of his lawyer’s job. He points out that we have had some return for this $41 9m spent by the Australian taxpayer; that is how the lawyer from Stirling handled the alternative argument. Would it not have been a shocking thing if we had got no return at all?

The world knows that there is petroleum in the land mass of Australia and off-shore. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1962 I was told that a Soviet geologist had done some research in Australia, with the authority of the Australian Government, and he had said there must be petroleum products off-shore and in the land mass of Australia. He had submitted a report about it, but because it came from a Soviet geologist no use was made of it. In those days it was regarded as politically traitorous to talk about the achievements of the Soviet Union. The honourable member for Stirling puts great emphasis on his statement that we have got equity because we are 68 per cent self-sufficient in petroleum products. I suppose the honourable member for Stirling would have been happy if the companies involved had got our subsidies and shot off out of the country, doing another Alexander Barton, and leaving the Australian Government and the shareholders out on a limb. They will not get that opportunity with government equity, because the Government will have constant surveillance on the research and achievements of the petroleum companies.

We have been told by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) that we are driving away these international companies with the know-how and the equipment to search for petroleum products. It has never been said in this House yet but I take the risk of saying - it is my own personal view - that if I thought something serious would happen to the Australian nation as a result of these people with the know-how - the multi-national corporations which are well equipped to search for oil - leaving us out in the cold in the search for oil, I would urge my Party to confer with the Soviet Union with a view to using its geologists, its equipment and its know-how to search for petroleum products and natural gas on the Australian land mass or in the offshore regions of the Australian continent. Some years ago in the Parliamentary Library in an international magazine I read an article which dealt with India and Pakistan finding themselves urgently in need of new discoveries of petroleum products. The Soviet Union offered to drill for petroleum on behalf of those countries and said it would not lay any claim to the petroleum it found. As a result of this offer by the Soviet Union the international petroleum company supplying petroleum products to India and Pakistan reduced the price of its products so that those countries would not show interest in the Soviet Union carrying out further searches for oil. I would hope that some other members on either side of this House would express their views on this matter and let the records of the Australian Parliament record their attitude on this matter. If the international consortiums are going to leave us out in the cold they should be told that there are members of the Australian Parliament who are prepared to ask the Government to reconsider its attitude on asking the Soviet Union to search for petroleum in our region.

I think this Bill will go down in history as something to which the Australian people have been looking forward. Not many Australians today are aware of the fact that although we have spent more than $400m on the search for petroleum we have not got one share in the natural resources which have been discovered. They are commonly referred to as God given resources’. They are not manufactured or invented by man. They have been lying underneath the surface of the earth and underneath the beds of the ocean probably for millions of years. It is because of today’s technology that they are able to be gathered for the benefit of mankind. We are told, and we are all aware of the fact, that there is a world energy crisis. I hope that natural gas and petroleum products will keep Australia going for many years without having to resort to the use of nuclear power because I can see problems in the disposal of nuclear waste. It is a problem to which no country has found a posi tive answer. An article in an American magazine dated 23 February 1973 states:

The earth-burial system is far from a desirable one. There is no guarantee that these nuclear cemeteries will not be accident prone, or that the steel caskets will hold indefinitely, or that an earthquake or some other disturbance of nature will not set off a devastating nuclear-shower.

The complications connected with earth-burial are so enormous as to have set off hunts in numerous directions for alternative methods of disposal. This has produced some exotic suggestions, like shooting the wastes off into space or to some far away planet (What happens if a disposal rocket is faulty and explodes on take-off, or if it takes an earth course and has to be destructed?) . . .

These are good questions. The article states that no one has yet found the answer to them. We cannot dispose of nuclear wastes in the Antarctic, which has been suggested by some people, because the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 prevents this being done. I would not support a breach of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. Members of the Opposition pour criticism on the Government and accuse it of galloping towards socialism. This Government is conscious of the views of the Australian people. It will implement socialism only when it believes it is acceptable to the Australian people. Like the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), I do not hide the fact that this Bill gives the Australian community part ownership in the production and distribution of off-shore petroleum products of Australia. Yes, it is a leaning toward the socialist principles of the Labor Party and I believe it is a timely and progressive leaning because capitalism throughout the ages has virtually failed the nations of the world. The book entitled Tory M.P.’ by Simon Haxey points out how the munition makers of the world were controlled by private enterprise and were in the hands of many British politicians. They had shares in German munition works and Germany had shares in British munition works including Vickers and the like. I believe that private enterprise domination of the economy, particularly domination of that type has been partly responsible for some of the devastating and shocking wars in which most countries and particularly this country have been involved. When the people control the important natural resources of their nations I believe there is little possibility of those nations being involved in world blood baths.

Mr MacKellar:

– What about the USSRRussia?

Mr JAMES:

– In my view Russia has a better record and I have more confidence in it to maintain world peace today than I had in the Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy Administrations of the United States. This was not only the thinking of the honourable member for Hunter, it was also the thinking of very prominent statesmen and leading British citizens of the Lord Russell type and others who have a certain following throughout the world.

Mr MacKellar:

– Have you asked the Hungarians or the Czechs?

Mr Nixon:

– What about Chairman Mao?

Mr JAMES:

– You will not go to your electorate and criticise Chairman Mao now that this Government has established a $600m wheat deal with that country, a $300m sugar deal and a 20,000 ton iron ore agreement.

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

– Order! I suggest that interjections cease. I suggest also that the honourable member for Hunter comment on the Bill before the House and not interjections.

Mr JAMES:

– I appreciate your guidance, Sir, but I was brought up to answer critics. I was answering a critic. I thought it would have been more rude of me to ignore the critic. However, I will accept your guidance. The Government has often been criticised by members of the Opposition for what the Japanese may think of us. A quote which has been made before in this Parliament by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) is worth repeating. The honourable member said:

I shall quote from an authoritative paper published by the Economic Affairs) Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs which was prepared by Professor Hirono of Seikei University, after an exhaustive survey of Australian mineral resources policy, or rather, the lack of it.

The report stated bluntly that the most important problem in connection with the mineral resources policy of the Australian Government is, as repeatedly said, that an inclusive and systematic resources policy has not yet been established. It went on to say:

It is necessary for the Australian Government to decide its own policy for the mineral resources based on the long-term benefits for Australia, and for this special attention should be paid to changes in the international relation of supply and demand for mineral resources, to future changes in the competitive power of Australian mineral resources, to relations between other countries, to changes in the relative position and standing of Australia in the world, to changes in the industrial structure within Australia, to the development of technological reform, to changes in the degree of national interest in the development of technological reform, and to the promotion of living and education standards.

Mr Nixon:

– Who said that?

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member would not have said it because he would not have enough in his head to think out something like that or even to read it out. It is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity of wholeheartedly supporting this Bill with the greatest admiration for the Minister responsible for its launching into this Parliament, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the honourable member for Cunningham.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 is a monumental piece of legislation and it accords with the principles of the Australian Labor Party policy statement submitted to the people for the establishment of a national energy and fuel policy for this nation. The Australian people have waited in vain for a government that would speak out for this nation and ensure that the resources of the nation were husbanded, preserved and used for the people of Australia. This Bill sets out in detail to cover the various aspects of petroleum and minerals and assures the Australian people that the welfare of this nation will not be neglected and that we will not sell out our resources to foreign powers merely for a mess of pottage to meet a current situation.

Having heard the speech of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), a former Minister for the Army and a member of the Australian Country Party, I was utterly astonished and dismayed to think of the degeneracy of the Country Party. One thinks of the utterances of Sir John McEwen, a former leader of the Australian Country Party, in which he condemned those who were selling Australia out, farm by farm, and making this nation a quarry. Yet today we heard in this Parliament, merely for the sake of opposing, speakers come out to uphold the position of those who have been robbing and plundering our resources and selling the country, not farm by farm, but mile by mile - selling the great resources of the sea bed and the continental shelf and leaving Australia at the mercy of foreign companies.

This is nothing new. The energy crisis of the present time has not occurred only over the last 2 or 3 weeks with the diplomacy used by Arab states in making their message known to the states of Europe, to Japan or to any other country. The need to conserve our fuel resources has been known for some considerable period. A former Minister for National Development, Sir Reginald Swartz, said on 3

March 1970 that our needs for fuel resources would be doubled by 1980. That was the view of a former Minister for National Development.

Other views have been expressed that ought to be heeded. One of the prominent people in the field of energy is Mr N. A. Smith, the Chairman of the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria. He said that we should not export our natural gas; that we should conserve it and keep it for the energy needs of this nation.

But were his views respected? They were not. Former governments exported our natural gas. They had little regard to the needs of this nation. They were more concerned with getting whatever price they could. Let me remind the House that the price of liquefied petroleum gas as sold by the Esso-BHP group in Bass Strait to local government councils requiring liquefied petroleum gas was in the vicinity of $52 a ton while the same group were selling it to Japan for $16 a ton. This was the action of companies which have been given a franchise or a mandate - unfettered control over the resources of Australia. When one pauses for a moment to find out how such companies obtain these resources - how great graticular blocks were made available to them to search for flow oil and natural gas in Bass Strait - it is no wonder that legislation of the kind contained in the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 which we are debating at present should be brought forward.

Companies have received in subsidies $119m from the Australian Government. The States have assisted in various ways to the extent of $60m and taxation concessions have brought the total financial assistance granted to such companies to some $4 19m. The total expenditure by the companies was $84 lm. This amount was expended by the exploration companies in the search for oil and natural gas. Let us remember also the great assistance given to these companies by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. This Bureau has indeed made a tremendous contribution to the assistance given in a variety of ways to finding natural gas.

We hear the timid squeaks of members of the Opposition, fearful that something terrible will happen merely because the Australian Government has stood up for the Austraiian people and is to assert the control of a section of our resources for the Australian people. Let us look around the world. In the United Kingdom the British Petroleum Co. Ltd is a private company, that is true, but it is a government company. It is a company associated with the people of Great Britain. In Italy there is ENI, which has ventured out in the various fields of exploration, oil search, pipeline construction, sales, and the development of industry. This tremendous effort by a country which is devoid or short of all natural resources ought to be a lesson to us in what we ought to be doing. In the case of Holland, the Netherlands has kept a watchful eye on the development of resources there. When Esso and Shell were able to find great fields of natural gas in the North Sea in areas adjacent to the Netherlands, the Dutch Government very promptly came in and said: ‘Very well. Congratulations. You each can have 25 per cent equity in these resources and 40 per cent will go to Dutch State Mines with the right to distribute internally in Holland. The Dutch Government will retain a 10 per cent interest with the right to dictate and determine economic policy.’ By retaining 10 per cent equity in the venture the Dutch Government was able to provide natural gas to depressed areas and to make it available for the development of industry and the stimulation of production. So it was that Holland was able to cease importing certain goods that it hitherto had had to import and was able to develop industry and to provide gainful employment for its unemployed. This is the pattern of thinking overseas. It is a shocking thing that in this country we should virtually have to be declaring the self-evident facts in the Australian Parliament. Surely the Arab countries with their present policies have asserted their sovereignty and their position in the world. Yet we, with these great reserves of natural gas, with oil to be found and with the minerals available in our country, are hesitant and are not proceeding as we should.

I remind honourable members of what has taken place in the past. I refer for example to the sale of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries by a non-Labor government, an anti-Labor government. William Morris Hughes - Little Billy - helped to create and to build that organisation for the protection of Australian people in peace and war. It was left to a non-Labor government to sell out COR. Billy Hughes was bitter beyond words because of the action of the non-Labor government in that respect. Not only did that government sell out COR and other organisations-

Mr Jacobi:

– The shipping lines.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– . . . including the AWA organisation and the shipping companies, which are ot so much related to this measure, but also it betrayed national interests in every possible respect.

At Newnes and Glen Davis we had the richest oil shale in the world. Not only did former Liberal-Country Party governments close those industries; those industries were demolished and smashed by those former governments so that they could not be-

Mr Viner:

– What rot.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– -It is not rot at all. Anyone who went to those places and saw what had happened would believe that a nuclear bomb had fallen there. They had been utterly demolished and ruined beyond repair.

Recently, because of this, I asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy to look at the matter of production of oil from coal and from our rich oil shales. I know that the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. through its mineral division has an interest in a great field at Julia Creek in Queensland. I wish that company well. I hope that that field can be developed. But I also make a plea for the production of oil from coal and oil from shale. The provisions of this Bill give an opportunity for this Government to work in this way. In fact, at present there are foreign companies interested in setting up operations in Australia for the purpose of producing oil from coal. They will be coming to this Government and to the State Government of New South Wales to seek approval and support for their plans. I am most anxious to see that an industry to produce oil from shale is developed because this form of energy resource ought to be tapped in the interests of the Australian people.

The production of oil from shale is a wonderful industry. But let us think of the whole range of energy reserves available to us. We cannot afford to overlook any form of energy source. We must look at every possible source of energy. The production of oil from shale, which was commenced long before the turn of this century, ought to be developed once again. For that reason, I asked a question of the Minister about this matter. I ask him to continue his investigation into this possible development. I am concerned particularly that we should have a survey of all our oil from shale reserves - these basins throughout the country - and have an industry established at some strategic place. We ought to try immediately to get the best retorting techniques perfected so that we will be able to win from our shale the maximum amount of oil.

It is known that to a large extent we have copied our retorts from the Scottish practice. The retorts in Scotland were able adequately to treat the low grade shales of Scotland. But the shales in Australia are immeasurably richer. A greater volume of gas is discharged from our shales and we need a greater capacity to suck from the shales the gasses produced by heat. New techniques are being investigated constantly. I would like to think that we in Australia would not overlook this important source of energy production which was used in this country in former years. In the course of the First World War, Newnes was able to supply a quite substantial amount of oil, including gas oil for the Navy, petrol, naptha, sulphate of ammonia, wax and other substances of this kind which are of very great value to the economy of this country. While the great nations of the world plead for energy, for power, for gas, for petrol and for the sources of energy of all kinds, let us be realistic in this country. Let us give this measure introduced by the Minister for Minerals and Energy our blessing and our support so that he can go forward in a workmanlike way to see that this legislation receives approval at the earliest opportunity and that positive action is taken to protect Australian industry and a great Australian asset. I am pleased to support the measure. I can only hope that the Parliament will wisely support it and that, in another place it will receive the support that it richly deserves. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In the few minutes available to rae I wish to make it clear that I oppose the Bill and state the reason why I oppose it. My opposition is centred on a paragraph of the Minister’s second reading speech in which he said:

Our predecessors in office certainly sought development of our resources. The great difference between them and us was their policies, which exposed Australian initiatives to overseas acquisition and control.

The difference is that at least our system worked. Our system of encouraging private enterprise to come to Australia and to put risk capital into this very risky process of exploring for and developing the mining of minerals and oil worked. That is one of the factors that is important.

One does not just find oil. One does not drill for oil with one’s mouth. One finds oil through people going out and putting holes down into the land or the sea. This is a most expensive and very risky business. Under our system, it worked. One of the facets of the Bill that I dread is this: I have the great suspicion that it will do one thing very effectively, that is, that it will stop the advancement of private enterprise in oil exploration and development. Who would put his money into the search for oil with the sure and certain knowledge that if and whenit was found - and the word ‘if’ is most important - he will not have control over it? It is quite clear according to this legislation that the Government can just walk in, have a document signed by a magistrate and take over the control of an oil or mineral discovery. I do not say that that will always happen. But the fact is that looming over industry now is the threat that it might happen. The threat is that the Government knows best. Big brother looms over the industry in a way that was never known before. This is the fear that the industry has in a most acute form. Industry cannot trust the Labor socialist philosophy. In particular it cannot trust the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), who is at the table. There is this overwhelming uncertainty in the industry. Development is steadying down just at a time when we need that development most.

The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) has spelt out frequently how the pace of development has slowed down. Why has it slowed down? The urgency for exploration is more acute than it has ever been before. But who would put money into mining or into the risky business of oil exploration knowing that if - this is the important qualification - the venture is successful, the Commonwealth Government will have the ability to take over that discovery. This is the fear. It is not just a philosophical fear. It is an overwhelming fear that we on this side of the House have and which mining industry leaders have. As the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) so rightly said, the small mining companies have this overwhelming dread that the Minister for Minerals and Energy with his ideological bias is standing ready and willing to strangle the industry. People say that this is a figment of our imagination. The fact remains that while the present Minister is in office and the present Government has this philosophy so clearly-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Is leave granted for the Minister for Minerals and Energy to move his amendments together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Amendments (by Mr Connor) proposed:

Clause 7 of the Bill sets out the functions of the Authority which permit it to explore and recover and deal with minerals. In view of the lack of justification by the Government in regard to minerals, one wonders why this Bill gives the Authority control over minerals. The powers and functions of the Authority, as set out in clauses 6, 7 and 8, are to explore for, to recover and to go right through the gamut of operations to the buying and selling of petroleum and minerals. It may assist but not provide financial assistance by way of grant or subsidy to private industry, it may make schemes designed to ascertain the quantities of petroleum and minerals available for recovery in Australia, and it may operate pipelines. Very shortly expressed, they are the powers and functions of this Authority. So one can see that it operates over the whole field from exploration to recovery to utilisation of petroleum and minerals.

How then is it to carry out these powers and these functions? In other words, how can it get a right to explore and recover petroleum and minerals? If we look at clause 43 of the Bill we find that the exploration and recovery right is achieved by a very simple but devious administrative device. It is by the publication of a notice in the Gazette of an area to be described as an exploration area either for petroleum or minerals. It may be any part of the Australian continental land mass, that is, not only the Australian continent as we know it - the on-shore land mass, we might call it - but also the off-shore land mass as defined, going beyond the 200 metre mark, beyond what is known as the continental shelf. That is a new description of Australia - the Australian continental land mass. By this administrative device an area can be defined as the area where this national Authority may explore or carry on operations to recover either petroleum or minerals.

There is nothing to stop the Authority describing in a Gazette the whole of the Australian continental land mass as the petroleum or minerals exploration area into which it can move. It can seek the consent of the owner or occupier of the area nominated as an exploration area. If the occupier does not consent, all that the Authority needs to do is to walk down the corridor, find a justice of the peace and obtain a warrant to enter that land, notwithstanding any objection at all that the occupier or the owner may have. The Authority can then walk in, explore and carry on recovery operations. If it finds minerals or petroleum, then by virtue of clause 45 once that mineral or petroleum is recovered it becomes the property of the Authority and any right or interest that an individual or a State has in those minerals or the petroleum is excluded. It is converted to a right to compensation.

The extent of the operation of this device must be understood against the context that within Australia all minerals and petroleum are owned by each of the States of Australia except in those rare situations where what we call in Western Australia a pre-federation title gives to the owner not only the right to the surface soil but also the right to the minerals under the surface. With a State owning all minerals - be they metals or petroleum - a person is given a licence under State mining law to go in and explore, and once he discovers then to recover. In that sense the person who has explored and recovered under a State mining right has the property in those minerals.

Against that background one has to look at clause 9 of this Bill which seeks to invoke certain constitutional authority needs to be looked at. It invokes the interstate trade and commerce power, the overseas trade power and the defence power as well as the right of the Commonwealth to make laws in respect of Territories. That is the constitutional source of power upon which the Bill draws. It is to no purpose to look at clause 9 and say that that limits the extent of this Authority’s power to act. The proper way in which to look at this is to assume the constitutional validity of what is done and then to look at the full extent qf the operation of this Authority given the constitutional validity expressed in clause 9. About that I say only this: I have grave doubts that it does validly draw upon the constitutional powers expressed in clause 9. We should ask ourselves the simple question: Is the right to explore for minerals pursuant to this law a law in respect of mining or is it a law in respect of trade and commerce between the States, in a Territory or between a State and a Territory, or is it a law with respect to overseas trade? I venture to suggest that the quick and obvious answer is that it is a law with respect to mining and therefore it does not have any constitutional validity.

But assume that it does. Having regard to section 109 of the Constitution which renders paramount over any State law a law of the Commonwealth, let us assume that a declaration of a petroleum exploration area made under clause 43 of the Bill is a valid exercise of Commonwealth power. This means that all State laws dealing with mining in respect of that particular area go for nought. It has no lawful authority when it stands alongside the exercise of Commonwealth power, assuming, as I say, that the constitutional validity is there. Therefore this Authority may by this administrative device of notifying an area in the Gazette as an exploration area take over completely anywhere in Australia - any prospective area for minerals or petroleum - the right to explore or recover minerals. Let us look also at the position in a State where a company has a mining right, has gone into an area and has discovered minerals but has not yet recovered them. The Authority comes to know about it. The Authority then, in respect of that area where minerals or petroleum have been discovered, declares it to be an exploration area within the operation of the Authority. The company which has a right under State mining law is then overridden by this Authority and the Authority alone can recover those minerals. All that the company, which has spent millions of dollars to discover minerals, has is a right to compensation. This is a complete transgression of the whole of the mining and petroleum administration in Australia. It must be understood by the whole of the industry and by the people of Australia that, given the constitutional validity of this Bill, this Authority will be put in a position of paramountcy over all the law that presently operates in Australia. One can multiply these examples over and over again. I have tried to give a thumb nail sketch of the full operation and effect of this Authority. Given that thumbnail sketch, it is no wonder that the Opposition totally opposes this Bill and it is no wonder that our opposition will be carried into the Senate.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I will take only a few moments because I know that there are honourable members on the other side who want to speak. I will just pass one simple observation. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) stated that there is not a shortage of minerals in the world. He would be well advised to have a look at the recent report by the United States Secretary of the Department of Mines. He will find there that in certain areas of minerals there is in fact a rapidly increasing world shortage equally as disastrous as the shortage of fuel and energy. I have received representations from a mining company in Adelaide and it is to that extent that I want to address my remarks to the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). The company says that in relation to present State leasing rights generally it agrees to the Authority providing that the Authority allows for the continued existence of individual explorers and developers in co-operation and competition on equal terms with the Authority, and that the Authority confines its activities to the Territories and off-shore areas or leases from the States and undertakes work commitments similar to the rest of the industry.

I want to traverse the same ground that the honourable member for Stirling traversed but I hope that I will do so more briefly. The company contends that the statement by the Minister indicates that he recognises that powers over ownership and control of minerals rests with the States. The company has contended this for some time and has again called urgently on the Treasury to cease purporting to have powers under the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act over acquisition of properties by an Australian incorporated company and so clear the way for direct dealings with the Department of Minerals and Energy on the matter of Australian Government consent to the issue of a mining lease to a foreign company or to the Government’s consent to a joint venture agreement with a foreign company.

The company said in clarification that when the States issue an exploration licence to an Australian incorporated company which has been designated foreign under the 15 per cent to 40 per cent designation, the company felt that it may be desirable to seek the consent of the Australian Government. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) has stated:

The exercise with State internal licence powers without due regard to the Australian Government’s export control powers could place the licensee companies in a wholly unreasonable and unfair position.

The company went on to say that in its opinion, if a project proved viable, a licence would be issued if the export was in the national interests at that time, whether or not the company was Australian controlled and had sought consent to the issue of an exploration licence or joint venture. The company could not imagine that the Government of the time in 10 to 15 years and 10 Ministers hence saying: ‘Naughty boy, you did not seek consent at the time so you will not be issued with a licence’. The Minister recognises a position for foreign companies in the exploration and development of resources. He stated: . . we are not unmindful of the contributions by overseas companies to our development in particular cases by the provision of capital and technology and commercial opportunity, but Australia will be the primary partner in such enterprises henceforth.

This statement, together with pronouncements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Minerals and Energy further clarifying the Government’s policy on foreign investments, should now clear the way for the Minister to decide his attitude towards the merits of individual joint ventures with foreign companies. This is a matter not only concerning the company to which I have referred but also I have received information that other companies are concerned. I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy to clarify the points that I have raised.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I should like to raise two or three points in the few minutes available to me. There has been a lot of talk about the investment of the taxpayer in oil exploration. It has been said that $400m odd has been invested by the taxpayer in one form or another, such as taxation foregone and so on, and the question was asked: ‘What have the Australian people, got out of it?’ There has been some discussion in relation to Santos Ltd, an Adelaide-based company. The figures relating to this company’s operations are interesting. They show that a 10 per cent royalty being paid on oil and gas is equivalent to about a 30 per cent ownership in the company. If one puts these figures together as has been done by an accountant friend of mine, an income tax rate of 47.5 per cent, plus the royalty payments, gives the Australian people - the taxpayer - about an 80 per cent return on their investment. I would think that is not altogether a bad return when one considers that there have been a great many other cases where a great deal of money has been invested and where the companies have not received back anything at all.

My main plea which I want the House to consider is that it is time that we took a more responsible attitude to the question of overseas ownership, because this constitutes the mainspring of the Government’s Bill. There is a fear that evil overseas ownership is going to get hold of our heritage - I think that is the word that is usually used - and squander it and we are going to lose our rights to it. Really, this is essentially nonsense. I think it would do us all good to consider the history of certain mining companies. I believe that Mount Isa Mines Ltd is a classic case because if one reads the history of that company which is very well and interestingly written by Blainey - I think it is in the book The Rush that Never Ended’- one can see set out with crystal clarity the problems experienced to obtain Australian capital. Everybody stood around and waited and an American company - a big overseas combine of people about whom honourable members opposite talk so disparagingly - came in and for years went without any return on its capital. This situation occurred again at Broken Hill.

It is no good the Government saying that these people are bad because they come from overseas. There is a tremendous amount of risk and expertise in the mining game. It is going to do Australia a great deal of harm if we brand everything from overseas as bad. This is particularly so when one considers that, in the end, Australia has control. After all, the minerals and the oil are in our country and, if we are wise, by entering into a sensible kind of partnership and without terrifying the industry as we are now doing, we can prevent the exportation, if necessary, of what is dug out of the ground by overseas capital and risk takers. If it is in Australia’s interests and if the minerals are needed here, we could step in and say: ‘There is not going to be any gas, oil or minerals exported’. It is within our power now to do that. However, with the way that this Bill is going to operate, we are going to make certain that overseas capital does not enter Australia and does not produce the oil and gas that we then could control.

This is my fear about the Government’s legislation. It is not going to be a partnership. If it were going to be a partnership, I would not be opposing the Bill as I do now. I fear that the industry is just waiting for a takeover. It is vulnerable to a takeover. Anybody could walk into say, Mount Isa Mines Limited which has developed after a tremendous amount of risk taking, and take over. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) could go in and say: ‘Let us take over Mount Isa’. Perhaps this is not what the Minister has in mind at the moment, but this is what the industry is fearing with, I think, a great deal of justification.

I never thought that I would be in this House when legislation so radical as this came forward. The Australian Labor Party would do well to consider what it is doing because there is in Australia - this was shown on Saturday - an overwhelming distrust of socialism as such. If this Bill does not expose the mining industry to socialism, I cannot understand either the Minister’s second reading speech, the Labor Party’s philosophy which was spelt out at its Launceston conference and which has been mentioned or, indeed, what has been said in this debate today. This is the fear that we all have on this side of the House. But, even more important is the fear that the mining industry has. I am certain that, while the present Minister is in charge of this Department, this fear will not be quieted. I certainly have a fear and it is not only a philosophical dread of socialism as such. It is just that I fear that there is going to be a kind of takeover at the very time in our history that we need, more than ever before, exploration and mining for oil to proceed. This is the time when the fear of socialism is going to stop the rigs working. That is why I oppose it. It is something about which the Labor Party ought to have another think.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I will have time to say only one sentence. The Minister for Minerals and Energy might consider why he is so accident prone in these matters–

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired.

Amendments agreed to.

Question put:

That the Bill, as amended, be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with amendments.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mir Connor) read a third time.

page 4633

ASSENT TOBILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1973.

Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill 1973.

page 4633

FISHERIESBILL 1973

Bill received from the Senate, 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.

This Bill amends the Fisheries Act 1952-1970. A Bill substantially the same as this was introduced into the Parliament by the previous Government in April 1971, along with a Bill to amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968. However, they were not proceeded with then because, I believe, of problems that were experienced in relation to off-shore legislation since reintroduced by this Government as the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill. Most of the provisions of these Bills were considered by the then Government to be essential to permit the proper management of Australia’s fisheries resources. They can only be regarded as even more urgent now.

I believe it is well known, but it is certainly worth repeating, that the Australian fishing industry is one of the fastest growing of our primary industries. Just a few figures will illustrate this. The gross value of production of marine produce has risen from $3 1.7m in 1961-62 to $91.8m in 1971-72, an increase of 190 per cent. Exports have risen at an even faster rate. In 1971-72 exports of marine produce was valued at $75.7m compared with $ 15.2m in 1961-62, an increase of 398 per cent.

It is axiomatic that an industry of the size and viability of this one needs sensible planning to ensure its continued growth and viability. I would like to say something about the present Government’s policy in relation to fisheries before discussing the Bills themselves. I might first refer to the second reading speech of the then Minister of Commerce and Agriculture when introducing the original Fisheries Bill in 1952. During the course of that speech he said:

The purpose of this Bill is to legislate in respect of swimming fish in Australian waters beyond territorial limits, in order that fishing in such waters can be so regulated that existing fisheries resources will be conserved for regular commercial development, and excessive exploitation of our fish resources will be prevented.

The policy spelled out then of management and conservation of existing fisheries has been pursued in the administration of Australian fisheries since. Honourable members will be well aware of the emphasis the Australian Government places on conservation matters generally. However, the Government believes that its role in regulating the fishing industry should not stop at the conservation of the resources but should extend to rational utilisation of existing fisheries and the development of new ones. In regard to the future of the industry, we have already financed a number of projects designed to explore and develop new fisheries and new fishing techniques. Since the beginning of the year the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) has announced the allocation of almost Sim for such projects in the southeastern and western Australian waters. The Australian Government has also allocated with the Victorian, South Australian and Tasmanian Governments in excess of $350,000 to develop new fisheries for shark fishermen adversely affected by the Victorian ban on catching and marketing large school shark containing mercury above permissible levels.

Another aspect of our expansionist policy is to be seen in our support at the law of the sea negotiations for a 200-mile preferential fisheries zone.

Given this policy of expanding our fisheries and extending the area of Australian jurisdiction over fisheries, it will be apparent that it is necessary to have legislation which permits giving effect to policy requirements. The amendments which these Bills introduce are partly designed to this end, and partly designed to overcome difficulties which have become apparent in administration of the existing legislation. I would add that rapid expansion of Australian fisheries as we give effect to our policies, and a favourable outcome with respect to our claim for a 200-mile fisheries zone, may well warrant a further overall review of our fisheries legislation in the future. However, the Government considers at this time that we should make only necessary amendments to existing legislation and undertake an overall review in the light of experience and results in the matters I have just mentioned. Honourable members will be aware that the existing Australian Government legislation is administered in proclaimed waters by the States as delegates of the Australian Government. A considerable FederalState machinery has grown up for this purpose. These Bills do not in any way affect the operation of that machinery except to facilitate it.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. The first substantive clause is clause 5, which empowers the Minister and the Secretary to delegate their powers under the Act, subject to the reservation of licensing powers in relation to foreign vessels, fish processing and fish carrying vessels which may be delegated by the Minister or Secretary for Primary Industry only to officers of the Department. Power provided in clause 7 to cancel or suspend a licence may not be delegated at all. Clause 5 also gives effect in the Act to the principle that an official upon whom statutory powers are conferred should be subject to the directions of the Minister in the exercise of those powers. It further provides for the Minister, as defined, to delegate all of his powers under the Act to a Minister of the Papua New Guinea Government, who is further empowered by this clause to exercise those powers independently.

The Bill above all provides practical machinery for regulating the quantity of fishing effort in fisheries requiring such regulations. Clause 6 empowers the Minister to close an area to the taking of a specified kind of fish except by vessels with licences endorsed for that fishery in that area. Selection of vessels entitled to work in a controlled effort fishery will be made in accordance with principles and policies publicly announced by the Minister in each case. To complement the control over the number of vessels, the existing provisions relating to registration of fishing gear are repealed and a new power is provided to regulate the quantity of fishing gear permitted to be used from a vessel and to require that such gear be registered under State or Territory law before it may be used in proclaimed waters. This latter provision will prevent fishermen from using one full set of gear in State waters and another in proclaimed waters and so defeat the purpose of the effort control policy. To deal with the situation of 2 fisheries in the same area using similar gear but having different management regimes, power is provided to prohibit carrying one or other kind of gear on a vessel in the area unless that gear is stowed and secured. Clause 7 provides for licensing machinery to implement the foregoing principles.

Henceforth, a boat licence will authorise the use of a vessel to process and carry its own catch only. New classes of processing and carrying boat licences are provided for in respect of vessels that perform those functions for other vessels’ catches. A new power is provided for endorsing a boat licence to authorise its use in a controlled effort fishery. The discretionary power to grant or refuse a licence is re-enacted. This power will continue to be exercised in accordance with the principle that unless there is good reason, consistent with the purposes of the Act, for refusing a licence, it will be granted. To simplify licence issuing procedures, clause 7 provides for a licence to be issued so as to expire on the same date as the State licence held by the applicant and for both Commonwealth and State licences to be printed as a single document if the State concerned so wishes.

Cancellation of a licence for contravention of a condition, or if the holder has been convicted of an offence against this Act, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act or a State or Territory fisheries law, is provided for in clause 7. That clause also provides for suspension of licences. If a condition is contravened, suspension may be invoked for a month or until legal proceedings (to be commenced against the holder within that time) are determined. If the licence-holder has had a State or Territory fishing licence cancelled or suspended, the Minister or the Secretary may, if he has consulted the State or Territory and if he is satisfied that suspension is desirable for the management of the fishery concerned, suspend a licence under this Act for such period as may be necessary. Suspension may be general or in relation to a specified fishery.

The Government has sought to protect the rights of individuals in relation the cancellation or suspension of licences by providing the qualifications in clause 7. At the same time, it considers that those provisions are necessary for proper management of the fisheries and for protecting the rights of law-abiding fishermen. The Bill repeals the offences provisions of the principal Act and re-enacts them in clause 11 subject to the new principles to which I have referred. Past experience has indicated a need for extending liability in certain circumstances. The holder of a boat licence henceforth will commit an offence if he permits anybody acting on his behalf to contravene a condition of that licence. The person contravening the condition is also liable as if he were the holder of the licence.

An act done by an employee or agent of a person charged with contravention of a notice under section 8 of the principal Act is deemed to have been done by the person charged. While the person who commits the contravention remains personally liable, the Bill, by extending liability to the master or owner of the boat, clears the way for courts to order forfeitures if such penalties are considered appropriate. Clause 11 re-enacts the forfeiture provisions, and provides that, if a conviction is recorded, the court may order forfeiture of the boat, its contents, the catch and the fishing gear. Clause 13 provides for liability, in cases of offences detected on a vessel without direct evidence of the person who committed them, to devolve upon the master of the boat. The Government considers that this is a reasonable provision, having regard to the possibility of evasion of due penalties by persons who have colluded to conceal evidence in the isolated conditions that prevail at sea.

Clause IS simplifies the giving of evidence of certain matters by empowering the Minister, the Secretary or a delegated person to give certificates of nationality of a boat, the juridical status of an area of waters, whether a licence was or was not held at the time of an offence or whether a licence was issued subject to conditions. The Bill does not provide for extending Australia’s fishery jurisdiction over foreigners beyond the existing 12 miles declared fishing zone. As I have already said, the whole question of the Law of the Sea is under international examination in the United Nations. Australia will be represented at the Law of the Sea Conference to be held in 1974. At this conference, the question of the fishery jurisdiction of coastal countries will be considered. The clauses of the Bill to which I have not referred are either formal or machinery provisions for the effective administration of the principles I have outlined. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 4636

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) BILL 1973

Bill received from the Senate, 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 certain of the machinery provisions of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act to ensure more effective administration of the legislation and, in conjunction with amendments proposed in the Fisheries Bill which I have just introduced, to bring the principles embodied in the two Acts into uniformity. Where appropriate, identical definitions and provisions have been introduced. As honourable members are aware, the main purpose of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act is to enable the fullest possible protection to be given to the living resources of the continental shelf of Australia including the Great Barrier Reef and the external territories. Such control is in accordance with international law as expressed in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. Clause 4 recognises changes in portfolio responsibilities in respect of certain island territories by including them within Australia. It provides similar definitions of ‘Australian ship’ and foreign ship’ to those in the Fisheries Bill which I have just introduced.

Clause 8 gives effect to the principle that an official on whom statutory powers are conferred should exercise those powers in accordance with directions given by the Minister. It also takes a further step in the transfer of power to Papua New Guinea by enabling the Minister for Foreign Affairs to delegate his powers under this Act to the appropriate Minister in the Papua New Guinea Government who may exercise those powers independently. Clause 9 empowers the Minister to close an area to the taking of a specified sedentary organism except by persons or by the use of boats with licences endorsed to permit the taking of that sedentary organism in that area. These provisions will enable effective effort-control programs to be undertaken where necessary, especially in the case of removal of live coral from the Great Barrier Reef, and of the taking of abalone. Clause 10 empowers the placing of endorsements on licences to authorise the holders to take sedentary organisms in effort-controlled situations. As in the case of the Fisheries Bill, this Bill contains provisions which enable Commonwealth and State licences to be combined.

Clause 11 provides for the cancellation or suspension of licences in exactly the same way as does the Fisheries Bill. Clause 13 re-defines the offences in relation to the use of unlicensed foreign ships to search for and take sedentary organisms. Clause 14 deems an act done by an employee or agent of a person charged with contravention of a notice under the principal Act to have been done by the person charged. As in the case of the similar provisions in the Fisheries Bill, while the person who committed the contravention remains personally liable, the Bill, by extending liability to the master or owner of the ship, clears the way for the courts to order forfeiture if considered appropriate. Clause 15 contains identical provisions to clause 11 of the Fisheries Bill. The provisions in clause 16 of the Bill are similar to those in the Fisheries Bill in relation to forfeiture penalties. Clause 17 provides similar evidentiary machinery to that in clause 16 of the Fisheries Bill. The clauses to which I have not referred deal with formal and machinery amendments for the effective administration of the Act. Because the provisions of this Bill are for practical purposes identical with many of the provisions of the Fisheries Bill, the House may consider it appropriate to debate them together. I commend this Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.13 to 8 p.m.

page 4637

SEWERAGE AGREEMENTS BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 December (vide page 4314), on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read st second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– This Bill seeks approval for the appropriation of loan funds to State governments totalling $30m during the current financial year. The Opposition recognises that this appropriation is the first step in a long-term program of financial assistance designed to eradicate the sewerage backlogs which now exist. We do have certain reservations with respect to the method of funding which is proposed but we nevertheless appreciate that the present backlog of unsewered properties is a major contributor to health and pollution problems in Australia’s cities. As such the commitment by the Government to initiate a national co-operative program is to be welcomed. It must be emphasised, however, that the elimination of the sewerage backlog in major urban areas - that is, those with a population of 60,000 and over - requires funds in the order of $800m. This figure increases to $ 1,000m if urban areas with populations of less than 60,000 are included and is in addition to the funds which the principal utilities authorities can reasonably provide from their own resources. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who is seated at the table, will recall having provided information along these lines in terms of question No. 64 which I raised with him during the early part of this current session.

This is a major national problem. As the Minister emphasised in his second reading speech, one in six of the population of Australia’s major cities are without adequate sewerage services and every city, to a greater or lesser extent, has deficiencies in sewerage treatment facilities. Given the magnitude of the problem it is not one which lends itself to an expedient or simple solution. But it is in fact an area of need which must assume a higher priority now than it has done in past years. It is also appropriate for the Common wealth Government to take the lead in working with the States in a form of co-operative federalism to solve what is patently a very great national problem. However, initiatives undertaken by the Government must clearly be subject to the co-operation and concurrence of State governments. This is necessary both because it is a program which requires a longterm commitment by all governments and because such a program must conform closely with the particular planning requirements of each State.

The Minister for Urban and Regional Development indicated, in an official statement on 22 August that:

The finance provided for this year will go to areas identified by the States as having the greatest number of unserviced properties. It will be made available under agreements to be worked out between each of the State governments and the Australian Government.

The principle inherent in that statement is endorsed by the Opposition Parties. It is a principle which takes appropriate account of different priorities within State programs, differing rates of growth and different geological conditions. The Minister indicated in his second reading speech that submissions from the States made it clear that a long-term agreement was not possible at this stage due to the limited time available to officers of State authorities to formulate their planning requirements. Consequently, the agreement provided for in this Bill relates to 1973-74 only. Nevertheless we would assume that any long-term agreement would only be contemplated by the Government after detailed discussions with and the co-operation of the various State governments.

The program for this year is necessarily constrained by the available construction resources and by the intensity of competing budgetary demands of this Government. However., I believe that the method of financing this year’s program should be subject to considerable criticism. Quite simply, and contrary to specific and previous public commitments, these funds are being provided in the form of loans rather than grants. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development will well recall, in his 1972 policy speech, said:

A Labor Government will immediately ask the principal water and sewerage authorities what Commonwealth grants in the present financial year would enable them to embark promptly and economically on an uninterrupted program to provide services to all the premises in their areas by 1978. For subsequent financial years, the Commonwealth Grants Commission will investigate and recommend the size of Commonwealth grants required to see the program through.

That statement was unequivocal in its adherence to the principle that moneys provided by the Commonwealth would be in the form of grants. As the member for South Eastern and Minister for Local Government in the State of Victoria, the Hon. Alan Hunt, said in the Legislative Council recently:

No grants are now envisaged. The Board of Works cannot afford money on the terms now proposed. It would be far better off simply borrowing money as it has done in the past and in obtaining increased loan allocations to enable this. I also point out that the proposal for $9.3 million refers to funds from the Budget - in other words, taxpayers’ funds provided from taxation. The position of the Victorian Government is that to the extent that these are taxpayers’ funds they should be grants and not loans.

I am certain that no member of this House would be able to confuse the concept of a loan as distinct from a grant which, of course, was promised by the Prime Minister in the course of the earlier election campaign. The Minister initially proposed that these loan funds were to be made available over a repayment period of 30 years. In his initial proposal the rate of interest was to be that determined by the long-term bond rate which, of course, remains the determinant in the agreement now before the House. As a result of this Government’s fiscal irresponsibility the major economic restraint is being applied by monetary policy. That policy has forced up the long term bond rate to 8.5 per cent - the highest rate recorded since Federation.

I have, on earlier occasions, adverted to the adverse effects generated by the overall increase in the interest rate structure. The terms of the loan incorporated in this agreement provide a most pertinent illustration of the interest burden which has been imposed upon the Australian community generally. In this specific case the already significant debt burden of sewerage and water authorities will be greatly exacerbated. The Minister himself pointed out in his second reading speech that sewerage authorities in Sydney, Newcastle and Perth are now paying 50c in every dollar to service their debt liabilities. The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works is paying 58c in every dollar. In these circumstances it is clearly irresponsible to provide funds on a loan basis tied to the long-term bond rate, especially when that rate is being driven to unprecedented levels.

Under the proposals initially offered by the Minister the Melbourne Board of Works would have had to pay interest and redemption charges totalling 11.83 per cent. The cost to the Board of servicing borrowings under current loan conditions is 9 per cent. If the Board was required to meet its current loan liability of $71 lm on the same basis as offered initially by the Commonwealth, Melbourne ratepayers would be liable to an additional increase of rates of about $30 on average. These facts, I know, have been subject to very detailed consultation between the Commonwealth Minister and his State colleagues. I recognise, of course, that following those consultations the Minister in particular has varied considerably the terms upon which the original loan moneys were made available. I know that he has a great appreciation of the work and position of my colleague in Victoria, the Hon. Alan Hunt. The facts have been very ably articulated by the Minister for Local Government in Victoria.

The Commonwealth has provided what can only be described as a very marginal response to the views of State governments on the question of finance for sewerage backlogs. That is, the loans repayable under the terms of this agreement are to be repayable over a period of 40 years and the rate of interest remains that equivalent to the long term bond rate at the time payments and advances are made. No matter what the loan conditions are, the simple fact is that grant moneys were promised and loan funds are being provided, lt take it that the Minister clearly understands that there is, of course, a fundamental difference between loan funds and grant moneys of the type that this Government proposes to provide quite contrary to the clear and unequivocal terms in which the Prime Minister included in his policy speech a promise which has now been dishonoured. I do not put it in a serious way to the Minister but the promise has been dishonoured because there is a difference between the loan funds and grant moneys. Quite apart from the debt structures of State governments and State authorities, this method of financing simply imposes a de facto tax by forcing increases in rates. This is a Government which appears to be impervious to the impact of higher taxation on the Australian community.

Mr Bury:

– lt was buying votes.

Mr LYNCH:

– It was buying votes, as my colleague points out. But I hope that the point will not be lost on the Minister because although we welcome the Government’s initiatives in this area we accept them with certain qualifications which I am sure we are required to put on the record: What the Government now proposes to provide is quite different from what was promised at the pre-election compaign. The Opposition accepts that urban problems require more attention by all governments, both Commonwealth and State, but we must register our rejection of the method of financing which has been chosen by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. The House is aware, of course, that this Bill is subject to a guillotine and I have agreed to limit my remarks in order to enable colleagues on this side of the House to raise a number of important matters. But it continues to be a matter of concern that the Government so regularly resorts to the guillotine when items of major interest and far-reaching importance are subject to debate in this House. We commend the Bill. Whatever the Minister might believe in response to the comments I have made I recognise that his contribution is important and that it, of course, represents progress which was not made by the former administration. I put that on the record lest there be any doubt or reservation by the Minister in responding to my comments. But in saying that I equally recognise that reservations are held by honourable members on this side because of the conditions which have been imposed and because what is now provided is in fact very different from what was originally promised.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has a most heartening note on which to sponsor this legislation through the House. I refer to the knowledge he has that every State has already indicated its acceptance of the provisions of this legislation. Again, it is true to say that this legislation is the result of a long period of earnest, detailed co-operation and negotiation between the Minister and his counterparts in the States. I congratulate him on what is another personal achievement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), the previous speaker, referred to a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) during the 1972 election campaign. While Labor was saying this, what did the Government of which he was a Minister do? It did as it usually did as far as local government was concerned and that was nothing.

The sewerage backlog presently existing in this nation did not develop in the last 12 months. The major share of it developed over the 23 years of urbanisation and development of the nation over which the Liberal-Country Party Government had responsibility. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about local government debt. What did the previous Government do for local government debt? It helped it build up to what can only be described as a height of unbelievable figures which were completely out of proportion compared with State and Federal debt in Australia. The previous Government ignored the needs of local government. The Opposition even fought the passage of the Grants Commission Bill in this place and the Opposition parties continued to fight it in another place and outside of the 2 Houses. A few days ago, they even opposed the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974 which provided for an alteration to the Constitution to allow local government access to the Loan Council. So I do not think anybody can regard seriously the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he started to talk about the financial position of local government.

This Bill will provide funds for the implementation of the first stage of this Government’s election promise of action to enable the principal water and sewerage authorities to embark promptly and economically upon a continuing program to provide services in their areas by 1978. Honourable members will recall the disdain with which the Prime Minister was treated when in earlier years as Leader of the Opposition he tried to get the then Government to accept a share of the responsibility of providing essential sewerage services.

There has been some criticism because the funds being made available in the first year are by way of loan funds rather than nonrepayable grants. Despite this, there are a number of advantages to be derived from making the initial funds available quickly as loans. I will come back to these later. It must be emphasised that the $3 Om provided for under this Bill is simply the initial or urgency funds to enable the sewerage construction authorities to incorporate backlog projects in the 1974 work programs. The assistance to be provided in the 1974-75 Budget will comprise both non-repayable grants and long term loan moneys. When funds are made available on a non-repayable grant basis to develop services, consideration should be given to the fact that unless the charges to the users of those services include the cost of capital those users are subsidised in a quite arbitrary and inequitable way because the subsidy is not related to need. Demand for those services may ‘be artificially inflated and this can result in misallocation of resources. The Coombs task force pointed this out in the ‘Review of the Continuing Expenditure Policies of the Previous Government’ at pages 26 and 27. The report stated:

In many public investment projects it is feasible to impose charges for the services provided. Generally it is desirable that such prices should reflect the costs of providing services although there are circumstances where economic principles justify a departure from this general rule. It is nevertheless important that criteria should be established to guide those who set prices for public enterprises so that waste may be avoided.

It is the functions of prices to allocate resources to purposes where they best satisfy the demands of the consumer. If services are under-priced in relation to the cost (including capital) of providing them, it may well become necessary to divert resources from other purposes to satisfy the demand for them. Where services are provided with capital equipment in large units it may sometimes be good sense, once the equipment has been established, to provide the services at a price which will ensure its full usage even if this is less than the full economic cost. However, it must be remembered that this exception will no longer apply when duplication or extension of the capital equipment is required by demand expanded by the low prices initially set to encourage full .use of the original equipment .

Prices of services provided as a result of public investment are not only important in the allocation of resources. If services are provided at less than cost then pricing represents subsidies for particular sections of the community at the cost of taxpayers generally. In some cases, of course, the consumers of a particular public utility service can in a general sense be identified with the community as a whole, e.g., postal services, telecommunications, electricity. However, it should be remembered that, although all sections of the community may use these services, the degree to which they do so differs.

Sometimes these subsidies have adverse social effects on income distribution in that they tend to favour those already well off. In other cases they are ambiguous or uncertain in that they appear to favour certain groups without conscious Government decision or public scrutiny - sometimes simply as the result of cumulative bureaucratic or political inertia, reflecting the difficulties of removing any existing benefit.

Even if the funds provided are raised by taxation they nonetheless have a cost - the opportunity cost of not having the resources employed in alternative uses. Bond rate can be ‘regarded as an understatement of the cost of the capital. Concessional finance provided to the States may not result in the concessions being passed on to users with the consequences I have already mentioned. The result can be disguised as general financial assistance to the

States. The terms of financial assistance to the States and their authorities for particular purposes should not be determined in isolation but as an integral element of the totality of financial agreements. The ‘polluter pays’ principle argues in the direction of full charging of users of services. If there is a case for giving special assistance to particular needy groups in the community, or particular areas, there are more direct, more economical and more equitable means for this than by granting concessional finance for particular categories of service.

Time therefore is needed to carry out a detailed examination of the indebtedness of the sewerage authorities, to prepare a critical analysis and to determine an order of priorities for non-repayable grant money. This Bill seeks to get things started and is an interim or stop gap measure only, pending the determination of the steering committee to which the Minister for Urban and Regional Development referred in his second reading speech and which has been set up to formulate a national sewerage program to overcome the backlog. It is important to note that the members of this committee have been selected because of their expertise, not because of their State of origin, and that the long term program will be worked out in close co-operation with the States.

The submissions that were received from the States following the Prime Minister’s request on 16 December 1972 for information on their sewerage backlog, together with other investigations completed to date, clearly show that the backlog is not simply a question of premises or allotments not being connected to a reticulated sewer; it is equally a problem of adequate treatment works and carrier mains as well as an increased rate of household connections. In practice, the sewerage system is an interdependent network of pipes, pumping stations and treatment facilities. It is not feasible to upgrade any one segment without corresponding amplification throughout the balance of the system. The Australian Government is determined to make available to the States the financial assistance needed to eliminate the backlog of unsewered lots and homes in the principal Australian cities in the shortest feasible period.

Because it has not been possible to investigate fully the magnitude and the scope of the problem, or to decide on the appropriate terms of financial assistance to the States for the long term program, this Government has decided to push ahead with the initial phase of a somewhat limited program for 1973-74. The general question of the backlog has been divided into 2 parts - one being the immediate issue of finance, which this Bill provides, and the other being an overall program extending over at least the next 5 years and underpinned by a range of urban policies formulated by the Department of Urban and Regional Development.

The initial 1973-74 sewerage assistance is based on an apportionment in accordance with each States1 relative proportion of the national population, the number of people whose dwellings are unsewered and the 1973-74 accelerated program shortfall. The mean value of these 3 parameters was adopted as a first basis for apportionment. Mr Speaker, I have before me a table which sets out a summary showing the sewerage backlog in terms of population and buildings. I did not have this document prepared in time to show it to the Opposition. But I ask for leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MORRIS:

– The dwellings of approximately one-sixth of the population of the principal urban areas in Australia are unsewered The lack of efficient treatment works also is a formidable part of the sewerage backlog. The problem is one of inadequate trunk sewers, carrier mains and treatment standards. Health hazards are created regardless of whether untreated sewage is being discharged through numerous domestic outlets or from outfalls and single stage treatment works with resultant pollution of waterways in each case. We all can call to mind beautiful beaches that presently are being despoiled by raw sewage outfalls. I just mention Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach near Newcastle.

Despite the financial assistance for 1973-74 in the form of loan funds rather than nonrepayable grants, the sewerage authorities will have a net benefit from these proposals because the premises now unsewered will commence to yield revenue at an earlier date than they would have if the Australian Government had not made the funds available. There will be an earlier return to the authorities concerned than otherwise would have occurred. The community will benefit because of the earlier installation of this most essential health service. The environment of our water playgrounds will improve, and our lakes, beaches and streams will be less polluted because the sullage traps and septic systems no longer will overflow and feed into the waterways or the gutters at the front of houses at the foot of the hill. At Blacksmiths in my electorate, the people are hoping that there will soon be an end to the sanitary pans that spill on to the footpath when they are lifted on to the trucks, and perfume the early morning summer air. In short, there will be a marked improvement in the quality of living conditions in the most unsewered areas as the backlog is eliminated.

In particular, Mr Speaker, I mention briefly the problems faced by the Hunter District Water Board in my electorate where there are 4 major unsewered areas, namely, BlacksmithsPelican, Tingira Heights, Floraville and Fennell Bay-Bolton Point. I am hoping that these areas can expect relief soon, as a result of the SI. 2m provided in this Bill for the Hunter District Water Board. The magnitude of the task facing this Board is better understood when note is taken also of the treatment works that need to be built to meet acceptable environmental standards. The cost of these works will be as follows: At Burwood Beach $ 19.9m, at Belmont $6.6m, at Swansea $1.5m and at Stockton $lm. The total cost is $29m. But at least the SI. 2m is a start. It is a start that will come into operation because of the action of this Australian Labor Government. The positive environmental and health benefits that will result from the moneys provided in this legislation flow only from the initiative of this Government.

Adequate sewerage facilities and the efficient treatment works for the discharge of effluent of acceptable standards are basic essentials of any environmental management program. A quality of environmental management at this level is being increasingly demanded in our modern society - and rightly so. This Bill represents a breakthrough in this field and the first step in the policy of the Australian Government to upgrade the quality of urban living. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I support the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). This Bill is an important one. In general terms, all members of this Parliament believe that it seeks to achieve desirable objectives. I acknowledge the importance of the co-operation of the States in undertaking this important task. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), who preceded me, skated over the problems created by the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in relation to this piece of legislation. Clearly the words used by the Prime Minister implied - in fact, stated clearly - that the Government would make available grants for this purpose. The meaning of these words cannot be skated over or ignored by the suggestions made by the honourable member for Shortland.

His argument that there were advantages in loans may well be correct. But the promise was clearly made. I find it difficult to separate the responsibility for providing sewerage services from the responsibility that the governments have for providing facilities for transport, Post Office services and the like. For this reason, I also find it difficult to support arguments that suggest that governments should take over responsibility for loan debts of transport authorities and should separate postal authorities and finance them in some way different from the manner in which they are financed at the moment and yet suggest that responsibility for sewerage services ought to be dealt with by loan and not by way of grant. The problems that the honourable member for Shortland mentioned in relation to his electorate are applicable not only to that area. They are, I believe, universal, even in many established cities.

The second reading speech made by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) in introducing this Bill raises a number of very interesting matters. The Minister mentioned that interest would be payable on the loans made by the Commonwealth Government to the States. He mentioned specifically that the interest rates would be the long term bond rate. I believe that that rate will be approximately 8.5 per cent. This rate of interest, I understand, because of the present economic situation is considerably higher than the States have had to pay previously. There is no provision for the interest payable to be reduced if in the future the long term bond rate falls. So, for the duration of the loans which are made in this financial year, State government instrumentalities will be paying considerably more than they otherwise would have been paying in interest and much of this will be money which will be paid back to the Commonwealth Government only in respect of money advanced from Consolidated Revenue. In fact clause 4 of the Bill makes it clear that the Government can grant moneys for this purpose out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund. Clause 7 provides that the Treasurer may authorise the payment back to Consolidated Revenue out of a fund at a later date. But the clause provides that the Treasurer may only do that. So in fact this can be a grant or in fact a loan from Consolidated Revenue which is repayable to Consolidated Revenue. This means that it is a grant or a loan from the Commonwealth in terms of what a loan is with interest, whereas in fact the money could be coming simply out of the taxation fund and not raised by way of loan itself. This, I believe, is unfortunate.

The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) when speaking in the second reading debate on this Bill made reference to the problems of the States and local government instrumentalities as regard loan funds. He pointed out that the volume of loans received by them which are repayable has been increasing considerably whereas the Commonwealth’s debt has been decreasing. Yet we find that in this important area there is now to be increased responsibilities for loan repayments on local government instrumentalities. The Commonwealth simply will be making the money payable from its own Consolidated Revenue and will not have to raise the money itself. The debts of local government instrumentalities will continue to expand. I emphasise again that this is a situation about which the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition made a clear and unequivocal promise that local government instrumentalities would receive grants.

Later on in his second reading speech the Minister mentioned that the Department of Urban and Regional Development is ultimately responsible for formulating a national sewerage program and that it has enlisted the assistance of the Cities Commission. Clearly the delegation of responsibility for the supply of treatment works is urgent. I would support these undertakings. I believe that it is important for the Commonwealth to assist in establishing treatment works. I know that a large amount of funds is required for these undertakings. The States have been confronted with many difficulties in their efforts to raise the necessary funds to build these works. I would urge the Minister to consider taking the ultimate responsibility and formulating a national sewerage program because I do not believe that local organisations or local instrumentalities at this stage have the degree of knowledge or the finance to undertake the necessary research to find out whether it is possible to build, for instance, sufficient facilities to pump sewage from the Sydney metropolitan area over the mountains. Such a project would enable sewage farms to be established, as they have been overseas, where the sewage can be used to economic advantage.

At the moment we are spending a considerable sum of money on the erection of sewage treatment works on the seaside. This means that we will continue to push sewage towards the seaside where it will ultimately be emptied into the sea. We are spending money on works which are designed to continue this operation. However, having in mind the expansion that is taking place in the outlying suburbs of Sydney, the satellite cities that are being established and so on it could well be more economic in the long term to consider proposals to pump the effluent over the mountains and for it to be treated in a way which will make it economically more useful to the country in the long term. I believe that agriculture and irrigation farming and so on in areas to the west of Sydney would be advantaged if such a proposal was put into effect.

The Minister in his second reading speech referred to the sewerage program being integrated with policies and programs of land commissions, housing, urban and public transport, area improvement programs and growth centres. We have not seen an increase in the backlog of sewerage connections in Sydney for some time. This has been because the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board has been able to require developers of land, by way of particular sections in its enabling legislation, to provide for sewerage and the installation of expensive sewerage equipment, amplification and reticulation within the area that is being developed. In short, these developers have been required to provide the service. Because of this the Beard does not have to provide the service itself. As a result of this legislative requirement there has not been an increase for some time in the number of properties that are unsewered in Sydney. I want the Minister to tell me whether he envisages that the Commonwealth Government, he or the people responsible for the policy planning in his own Department will be relieving developers of that cost. I ask this because the Minister has spoken about the sewerage program being integrated with the Cities Commission, area improvement programs and growth centres. Clearly if the Federal Government undertook this responsibility it would hold one of the keys to a substantial reduction in the cost of developing land. I think that all members of this House would like to know if that is what is envisaged.

The Prime Minister in his election policy speech spoke of the sewerage backlog being overcome by 1978 which, of course, is only 5 years away. No mention was made of this in the Minister’s speech although in an answer to a question somewhat earlier asked by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) he did mention this. I remind the honourable member for Shortland that the Government is making a fairly small start at the moment if this problem is to be solved within a 5-year program. The Minister has not made clear whether the backlog will be taken over in the time promised by the Prime Minister. I think that I ought to read to the House what the Minister said when answering the question from the honourable member for Perth to which I have referred. He stated:

We will try to meet the target date of 1978 set by the Prime Minister but the State authorities have agreed -

And it appears to me at least that they are going to be blamed for this - that probably it will take until 1980 or the early 1980s to achieve our aim because of pressure of resources, both man and materials.

Whilst that may very well be so, there has been a clear retraction of the promise that was made.

I would like to mention two other matters briefly because I have undertaken to shorten my contribution on this legislation. The Parramatta area has been badly served in regard to sewerage facilities in the past because development took place there some time ago. The result is that many areas still remain unsewered. The failure to meet this problem - and I am not blaming necessarily the Federal Government or the New South Wales State Government - has meant that the Parramatta River has become more polluted. Tests on bacteria found in the River after storms in the area have indicated that the headwaters of the River are substantially polluted because the areas to the west of Parramatta are not sewered. This has created very many problems in relation to the use of the River as a recreation area. The level of pollution has meant also that the Parramatta River cannot be used as rivers should be used. Because of the composition and nature of the soil in areas like North Rocks one finds that homes built in some areas have experienced problems. Relief drains amounting almost to moats have had to be built around 1 1 new homes in Parklea Place, for instance to carry away the sewage seeping down from the septic tanks of the homes above them. This seepage became evident when the foundations for the houses were being dug. Areas like this, where the soil is particularly bad, have a very real problem that cannot be overcome because one cannot simply make other people disconnect their septic tanks and put on a tanker service to dispose of the effluent.

There is only one other minor problem which I would like to raise with the Minister and it relates to the agreement itself. Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the sewerage works for the urban areas of Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle and so on are to be dealt with by the agreement, and then it provides as follows:

An urban centre referred to in sub-clause (1) of this clause is the area within that centre as defined by the Commonwealth Statistician for the purposes cf the 1971 Australian Census but may also include, for the purposes of the operation of the relevant provisions of this agreement, areas adjacent or proximate to that area that are included in the area to which sewerage works included In the approved program so extend.

It seems strange to me that, with sewerage authorities such as the Hunter District Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board and the Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board that cover particular areas, the Bill refers specifically to other areas which bear no relationship to the areas covered by the actual authorities. I wonder why the agreement does not apply to sewerage works within particular areas of those authorities rather than to some other area related to the Australian Census. No doubt this will cause a great deal of difficulty for those boards in knowing whether their works are within the area and come within the ambit of this agreement. I wonder why the agreement was drawn in this particular way. Apart from these matters that I have raised I believe that sewerage is an important problem and I commend the Government for having undertaken this legislation. But I am critical of it for having undertaken it not by way of grant, as was promised, but by way of loan, which certainly was not promised.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

– The speech that we have just heard from the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) was one which would not have been delivered by any member of the Liberal Party even as recently as 12 months ago. Until recently the attitude taken by honourable members opposite was that sewerage, like the other problems of urban areas to which it is related, was beneath the notice of this House. I recall only two or three years ago the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) following the then Leader of the Opposition - now the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) - in the debate on the Budget and stigmatised the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition as one which could well have been delivered by any local government mayor because the Leader of the Opposition had emphasised the great number of Australians who did not have the advantage of sewered homes. Even now the figures are insufficiently appreciated. Too few of us realise that in Sydney alone 450,000 Australians are living in homes which are not connected to sewers. In Melbourne the figure is 370,000; in Brisbane more than 100,000; and in Perth more than 330,000.

I have always felt that the indifference of honourable members opposite to this particular problem was related directly to the fact that so few of them had had their attention sharpened by the stink of an outside privy in high summer in an outer suburb or the noise of the night cart rumbling by in the small hours of the morning. It is a mark of the increasing maturity of this Parliament and its increasing preparedness to come to grips with the problems which are of concern to ordinary Australians that we can hear tonight a speech such as that given by the honourable member for Parramatta. I congratulate him on his acknowledgment of a problem which his predecessor in that seat would never have condescended to notice.

I thought that that honourable member for Parramatta was a trifle unfair in his reference to the Government’s approach to this problem. He made great play of the word ‘grant’ and endeavoured to suggest that there had been some departure from Government undertakings in this matter. The fact is that when the word grant’ is used in this House it is used within the context of section 96 of the Constitution which enables the Australian Government to make funds available to the States for such purposes and on such conditions as it may specify. So we have the possibility of making grants which are a donation to a State government under section 96 of the Constitution, carrying no interest rate and requiring no repayment. We have equally the possibility of grants being made to State governments which must be repaid and which bear interest at rates which vary from time to time. Finally, these are loans made available to State governments through the deliberations of the Loan Council.

This grant for which the Bill provides is, of course, an interest-bearing repayable grant available to State governments over and above their entitlements as determined by the Loan Council. These are technical economic distinctions recognised by every member of this Parliament. To quibble over the semantics of the matter is simply an exercise in politicking unworthy of the honourable member in discussing a matter of this importance. The honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards), who is sitting at the table, would recognise the importance^ - requiring repayment and charging interest especially in the context of a single year program before it has been possible to carry out detailed investigations into the sewerage requirement of the nation. He would know this because he would have familiarised himself with the Coombs report, and he would know what the Coombs report had to say under the section headed ‘Pricing Policy’. To refresh his memory I read a section of that report. It says:

In many public investment projects it is feasible to impose charges for the services provided. Generally it is desirable that such prices should reflect the costs of providing services although there are circumstances where economic principles justify a departure from this general rule. It is nevertheless important that criteria should be established to guide those who set prices for public enterprises so that waste may be avoided.

I know that in the cause of politics the honourable gentleman is frequently anxious to disregard and disown the tradition of economic probity to which he owes allegiance but I doubt that he would want to deny a paragraph such as the one I have just quoted. The report continues:

It is the function of prices to allocate resources to purposes where they best satisfy the demands of the consumer. If services are underpriced in relation to the cost (including capital) of providing them, it may well become necessary to divert resources from other purposes to satisfy the demand for them. Where services are provided with capital equipment in large units it may sometimes be good sense, once the equipment has been established, to provide the services at a price which will ensure its full usage even if this is less than the full economic cost. However it must be remembered that this exception will no longer apply when duplication or extension of the capital equipment is required by demand expanded by the low prices initially set to encourage full use of the original equipment ….

I would have thought that this was basic economics of the sort our children are taught if not in the final year of their high school courses, then certainly in their first year of university. I would have thought that it was the sort of economics which the honourable member for Berowra has been teaching for years, and I am disappointed that he showed such a readiness, by interjection and by movement of the head, to depart from it. This House has not been strong on economics. When we have a former professor of economics such as the honourable member for Berowra coming among us with his special background, we look to him to raise the expert quality of debate on issues of this kind.

Having said that and having drawn the attention of the House to the quite specific and undeniable usage of the word ‘grant’ as it is understood by all persons concerned with implementing the provisions of the Australian Constitution, I should like to go on and say that this Government, unlike any of its predecessors stretching back as far as Federation, does recognise the very heavy debt burdens of local government and semi-government authorities and the inhibitions which the debt burden imposes on these authorities in providing the services which Australians have come to expect of them. We know that in the coming year the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board of New South Wales is required to spend no less than 43c in every dollar of its revenue, and in most years more than 50c in every dollar, on servicing its debts. We know that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works in my State of Victoria spends 58c in every dollar on servicing its debts; that in Queensland the comparable figure is 28c in every dollar; in South Australia 47c in every dollar; and in Western Australia, 37c in every dollar.

Mr Cooke:

– Why are you charging interest on revenue?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honourable member for Petrie interjects to ask why we are charging interest on the grants which are being made to the States for the purpose of providing sewerage services. He should be able to see that there is no contradiction between a concern for the overall debt burden of local government and semi-government authorities and a concern for seeing that proper pricing policies are followed in the provision of public services.

As I have already emphasised, the loans for which this Bill makes provision - the repayable interest-bearing grants for which this Bill makes provision - are for a period of one year only. We were anxious to get the program off the ground. Accordingly, we did it on this basis. In future years when we will be providing much larger grants than those envisaged in the present Bill with a view to meeting our deadline by 1978 or very shortly thereafter, we again will be making those grants on the basis of their being repayable and bearing interest. At the same time we will be making grants in the other sense of section 96 of the Constitution - that is, grants which neither bear interest nor are repayable - for the purpose of reducing the interest burdens of the authorities concerned. Economic wisdom and good government can be served simultaneously.

Mr Cooke:

– When will it happen?

Mr MATHEWS:

– While the honourable member for Petrie on his populist kick can continue interjecting, I am sure that the honourable member for Berowra would see the wisdom of what I have been saying.

The great backlog in sewerage services with which the Bill deals had had a detrimental effect on the health of the outer suburbs of our great capital cities inasmuch as it is in those areas that the incidence of diseases such as gastro-enteritis and hepatitis has risen most dramatically in the post-war period. It has exacerbated the increasing level of pollution in all our outer suburban areas, and the pollution of streams such as the Yarra River which drain those areas, and bays such as Port Phillip into which the Yarra River drains. It also has exacerbated the shortage of residential land and the high cost of residential land. We have the position, as the honourable member for Parramatta pointed out earlier, that bodies such as the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works are increasingly imposing on private developers a planning requirement that they should not subdivide their land holdings until they themselves are able to provide sewerage services. While the honourable member for Parramatta deplores the fact that the present grants are to be made available at the long term bond rate, certainly the rates of interest paid by private developers on the money they must borrow to sewer their land holdings - which, of course, they pass on directly to the buyers of residential land - is an infinitely heavier burden.

Let me say in conclusion that the sewerage program which is being put into effect through the Bill we are discussing tonight represents a culmination of one of the first initiatives taken by the present Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wrote to the Premiers very early in December 1972, asking them to outline for him the grants that they could put to use in expanding sewerage services, not in the now current financial year but in what then remained of the last financial year. It is an index or a mark of the lassitude and apathy of the States that, whilst the Premier of Queensland to his credit was very prompt off the mark and replied to the Prime Minister’s letter in January, it took the Premier of Victoria, who is one of the most vocal of all the Premiers, no fewer than 3 months - until the end of March - to get around to replying to the Prime Minister’s letter, and when he did get around to it, instead of taking advantage of the Prime Minister’s offer of funds for the then financial year, he specified funds for the financial year 1973-74. It exemplifies of the difficulties of implementing a system of co-operative federalism in this country when such delays occur.

Debate (on motion by Mr England) adjourned.

page 4647

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have examined the matter of privilege raised by the Postmaster-General the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the House this morning. In my opinion the matter does not raise a prima facie case of breach of privilege which would warrant the matter being given precedence over other business of the House. The motion moved by the Minister will, if he so desires, be put on the notice paper as an order of the day.

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

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would ask that that be done.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If you give notice to the Clerk it will be done.

page 4647

SCHOOLS COMMISSION BILL 1973

Message received from the Senate intimating that it does not insist on the amendments to which the House of Representatives has insisted on disagreeing and that it has made further amendments consequent upon the rejection of its amendments.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

That the amendments be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Senate’s amendments -

Inclause 13, before sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: “ (1A) In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall consult and co-operate with representatives of the State, with authorities in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory responsible for primary or secondary education in either or both of those Territories and with persons, bodies and authorities conducting non-government schools in Australia, and may consult with such other persons, bodies and authorities as the Commission thinks necesseary.”.

In clause 13, after “Australia”, insert ‘and the need for ensuring that the facilities provided in all schools in Australia, whether government or nongovernment, are of the highest standard.’

In clause 13, after paragraph 3 (a), insert the following paragraph: - “ (aa) the prior right of parents to choose whether their children are educated at a government school or at a non-government school;”.

In clause 13, lines 35 to 46, leave out subclause (4), insert the following sub-clause: - “ (4) For the purpose of the performance of its functions, the Commission may undertake, or cause to be undertaken, such research as it thinks necessary into matters that relate to the functions of the Commission.”.

In clause 16, leave out sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: - “ (2) A Board shall consist of such persons, whether members of the Commission or not, as, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, the Minister appoints.”.

In clause 16, leave out ‘as are from time to time determined by the Minister’, insert, ‘as are prescribed’.

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

– I move:

That the amendments made by the Senate consequent upon the rejection by the House of Representatives of the initial amendments by the Senate be agreed to.

In previous debates on this Bill we have emphasised the great significance which the Government attaches to the role the Schools Commission can play in developing programs of assistance for all Australian schools and school children. Now that the Senate has approved the Schools Commission Bill in a form acceptable to the Government, I am prepared to invite the House to approve those amendments to the Schools Commission Bill. In particular, we agree to give prominence at the beginning of clause 13, which deals with the functions of the Commission, to the obligation on the Commission to consult and cooperate with education authorities in the

States and the two Territories and with those who conduct non-government schools. There is a consequential formal amendment to subclause (4) of clause 13.

We are also prepared to include in the list of matters to be taken into account by the Commission in the exercise of its functions reference to the need for the provision of facilities of the highest standard in all schools whether government or non-government and to the right of parents to decide whether to send their children to a government or to a non-government school. These two latter points are additions to the matters already listed in sub-clause (3) of clause 13 in the Bill as presented by the Government which include the primary obligation for governments to provide school systems of the highest standard open, without fees or religious tests, to all children.

The Government also accepts the need for Parliamentary oversight of the composition and functions of the State and Territory Schools Commission Advisory Boards. Therefore, we have proposed amendments which will make these factors subject to regulations.

Mr SNEDDEN:
‘Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– This Bill is part of an arrangement made. We know that the numbers are going to be in support of what is put, and what I wish to say here I will say for the States Grants (Schools) Bill, which I take it is next on the notice paper. We are not going to pursue here what was pursued in the Senate this afternoon. What was said there by the Liberal Party spokesman on education matters will stand for us here and the Hansard report will be available for everybody to see in the morning. Quite clearly the numbers will be against us and, that being so, I will not debate it now. However, I want just to reiterate. these 2 points: This Schools Commission Bill is a Bill that is designed to serve this community for a very long time into the future and if people assume that this Parliament, or this Government, is going to turn out to be the sole repository of wisdom on schools and education then they are making a very serious error.

There are 2 branches of amendments made to the Schools Commission Bill; one deals with identifying the persons who will constitute the Commission and the other deals with the powers of the Commission. The arguments have been well traversed. What we wanted in the identification of the members of the Com mission was that people concerned with education should be members of that Commission, because if we get a situation in Australia where there is only one authority - only one branch - of education learning then it is not going to be to the advantage of Australia, Australians and future generations, and that was behind our amendments. In fact the amendments in relation to the identification of people on the Commission were moved by the Democratic Labor Party in the Senate and we supported them. Those who moved them have now departed from them. Government members find that laughable; it is a clear indication of where the principles of the Labor Party lie, that they can laugh about such a matter, and if that needs to go on the record and if we need to have a government so bereft of principle it is a great pity indeed. The other branch of the amendments dealt with the powers of the Commission and on that matter we put our views and they succeeded. They will no longer succeed. We understand the way in which this happened and we regret that it did happen.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– The Australian Country Party supports the amendments moved by the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Lionel Bowen). These amendments have been discussed and agreed to and I will take the opportunity of speaking on these education Bills when the Minister brings forward the States Grants (Schools) Bill, which I believe he will do in a minute.

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

– in reply - Just in reply to what has been said, I thank the Leader of the Country Party for his remarks. In respect of the Leader of the Opposition I think this is the first time that he has taken part in the debate on the Schools Commission BUI. He would be well aware of the circumstances which encouraged the vigorous opposition to the sort of policy that was espoused. It was a policy that obviously was not his own; it was encouraged by someone who is outside but who is a member of his Party. It had nothing to do with education at all. It was a question of trying to influence education for the Leader of the Opposition’s own political ends and for that reason we rejected it. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 51

Majority . . ….11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Senate amendments be agreed to.

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

AYES: 81

NOES: 33

Majority 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 4649

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1973

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s request for amendment.

Senate’s request for amendment -

In clause15, sub-clause (5), leave out the subclause, insert the following sub-clause: “ (5) There is payable to a State under this section, in respect of each year to which this Act applies, by way of financial assistance to the State in respect of recurrent expenditure of each non-systemic school in the State-

in the case of the year commencing on 1 January 1974-

if the school is a non-government primary school - an amount equal to the product of the amount specified in column 2 of Table 3 in Schedule 2 opposite to the category specified in column 1 in which the school is included and the number of pupils receiving primary education at the school on the date in that year that is the schools census date for that State for that year; and

if the school is a non-government secondary school - an amount equal to the product of the amount specified in column 3 of Table 3 in Schedule 2 opposite to the category specified in column 1 in which the school is included and the number of pupils receiving secondary education at the school on the date in that year that is the schools census date for that State for that year;

in the case of the year commencing on 1 January 1975 -

if the school is a non-government primary school - an amount equal to the product of the amount specified in column 4 of Table 3 in Schedule 2 opposite to the category specified in column 1 in which the school is included and the number of pupils receiving primary education at the school on the date in that year that is the schools census date for that State for that year; and

if the school is a non-government secondary school - an amount equal to the product of the amount specified in column 5 of Table 3 in Schedule 2 opposite to the category specified in column 1 in which the school is included and the number of pupils receiving secondary education at the school on the date in that year that is the schools census date for that State for that year; and

such further amounts as will ensure that, notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provisions of this Act -

a sum of $62 in respect of every pupil receiving primary education at a nongovernment primary school on the date in that year that is the schools census date for that State for that year; and

a sum of $104 in respect of every pupil receiving secondary education at a nongovernment secondary school on the date in that year that is the schools census date for that State for that year, is payable to the school authority of the school.”.

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

– I move:

That the request of the Senate be met with the following modifications:

The words “Table 3 in Schedule 2” be omitted from the proposed sub-clause (5), wherever occurring, and the words “ the table set out at the foot of this sub-section “ be substituted;

The words “ and “ be inserted at the end of paragraph (a) of the proposed sub-clause (5);

The word “ and “ be omitted from the end of paragraph (b) of the proposed sub-clause (5);

Paragraph (c) of the proposed sub-clause (5) be omitted, and the following table substituted: -

  1. That the following consequential amendment be made: -

Schedule 2, omit Table 3.

The Government’s basic objective during the debates on the Schools Commission Bill and the States Grants (Schools) Bill has been to secure Parliamentary endorsement of the needs concept in the determination of grants from the Australian Government to both government and non-government schools, together with approval of the program of expenditure in the States in 1974 and 1975 of $694m recommended by the Interim Schools Committee - the Karmel Committee. The Government has also sought to have the Schools Commission established as an independent statutory advisory body which will recommend measures for raising the standards of education in schools and for eliminating inequalities in opportunity among Australian school children.

The Schools Commission Bill has now been approved in a form acceptable to the Government and the Government is prepared to initiate and support an amendment to the schedule of grants for recurrent expenditure in non-systemic non-government schools under the States Grants (Schools) Bill. In doing so, it will not depart from its policy of assistance on the basis of relative need. We will continue to insist on the scaling down of grants to those non-government schools which the Interim Committee has found to have recurrent resources greatly in excess of those of the average government school. During 1973, under the previous Government’s legislation, all non-government schools in the States received per capita grants towards recurrent expenditure of S50 for primary students and S68 for secondary students. During 1973, still under the previous Government’s legislation, those schools have received per capita grants of S62 for primary pupils and $104 for secondary pupils.

The amendment I am now proposing will give category A schools per capita grants of $55 for primary students and $85 for secondary students in 1974. In 1975 these rates will be reduced to $50 and $78 respectively. In addition, both primary and secondary schools in categories B and C will receive higher rates than were contemplated by the Interim Committee in both 1974 and 1975. Secondary schools in category D will receive a marginally higher rate in 1974. In all other respects, the rates for categories will be on the basis recommended for the Interim Committee under which schools in the categories of greatest need will receive grants at a much higher rate than would have been available to them under the previous government’s legislation. The cost of these amendments is estimated at $6.5m over the two years 1974 and 1975 in addition to the $694m program of grants for both government and non-government schools in the States.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– The Liberal Party will oppose this Bill and will oppose the amendments to the message that was sent from the Senate. We will continue to oppose them because we feel that it is right to do so. For many years a campaign was waged to achieve justice for the school children of this country. There were many people who, in the early days when it was dangerous to do so, asserted that every child in this country was entitled to equality and to justice. Many people supported that. Many of the people who did it in the days when it was dangerous to do it still survive here, and they will continue to survive here because the principle that every child in this country should attract a sum of money as of right, regardless of the school to which the parents choose to send the child, is right. If that principle is abandoned, it will be a sorry day for the Australian people and for the future of Australian education. This Party - the Liberal Party - insists that that principle of the right of every child to receive a per capita grant should be maintained.

There is another principle that lives alongside it, and we subscribe totally to that other principle. It is that in addition to the per capita grant to every child Government funds should be made available on the basis of need. Those 2 principles should live side by side. Indeed, that was the intention of the Government when it set up the Karmel Committee. The terms of reference of the Karmel Committee stated: ‘What additional funds should be given?’ The then existing appropriation was on a per capita basis. The terms of reference related to additional funds to meet needs. That is what was intended and, indeed, that is probably the way the Karmel Committee set about its inquiry. But in the Karmel Committee report a phasing out of assistance for a certain number of children in this community was recommended. We were unwilling to accept it. It so happenes that the Government was unwilling to accept the Karmel Committee report and said that there would be no phasing out; that the per capita grant would be cut off. The Government introduced a Bill to cut off the per capita grant. Now it cringes back into this chamber tonight and says that it will provide a per capita grant. This has been done because the Labor Party was in the midst of very serious internal difficulties on this matter.

There is a very great religious bigotry on the other side of the chamber. One must have religious bigotry to be prepared to abandon the principle of a per capita grant for every child in this community. If one did not have religious bigotry one would recognise the justice, the equity and the equality of the principle. Not only is there religious bigotry on the part of the Government but there also are the relics of class warfare still living from the Depression. The Government was prepared to bring in a Bill providing for an expenditure of S694m. What has it done now? It has come into this chamber and said: ‘You cannot have the $8m which would preserve that equity principle, but you can have $6.5m. In other words, you can have 85 per cent of the principle, but not 100 per cent’. The Government, in its cowardice, realised that it was on a hook. It was prepared to spend $6. 5m of the taxpayers’ money to get itself off its own hook of bigotry and social class warfare. That is the way the Government approached it.

From the outset of this debate the Government attempted to misrepresent. The first misrepresentation was that all of us in the Country Party and the Liberal Party opposed the expenditure of $694m. That was not true; it could not survive and it did not survive. The next misrepresentation was that we proposed to increase the expenditure by SI 14m. That was not true; it could not survive and it did not survive. Then the Government came down to reality. The reality was an expenditure of $8m. What the Government is doing is acknowledging our rightness to the extent of 87.5 per cent. It has not the courage to go the other 12.5 per cent. It may be said that if this Bill were not passed there would be no money for schools at the commencement of next year. That is the way the argument is put. But that is a false argument. The fact is that the Government, having come within $1.5m of the preservation of this principle for which people fought for 15 years, is prepared, for the sake of SI. 5m, to abandon its principles. It is prepared to spend $6.5m as a bribe to the Australian public. But it is prepared to stop short by $1.5m, knowing that the principle is right.

There are men on the other side of the chamber who know it and who have fought for it - I am prepared to acknowledge that they fought courageously for that principle - and they will not go home from this place tonight happy men. Once they have sold their principles they will always be suspect to sell their principles. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as he now is - the Leader of the Opposition as he then was - and the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), as he now is - the honourable member for Fremantle - both made promises last year that there would be no cut in any existing grant to any child. In February of this year, a time when they were in Government, the Minister for Education, in a letter to the Secretary of the Parents and Friends Federation of Victoria, stated:

No non-government school will suffer as a result of the Government’s initiatives.

Non-government schools have suffered. It is a clear broken promise. The acceptance of this compromise indicates that the Government does not want a double dissolution. It is perfectly clear that it does not want a double dissolution. It is prepared to use $6.5m of the taxpayers’ funds to avoid a double dissolution. The Government knows that it would have looked foolish, as it indeed now looks foolish, in that as a government it has come within $1.5m or 87.5 per cent of the principle and there it stops because it dare not have a debate in Caucus. If there were a double dissolution it would be quite clear that the 2 parties seeking government on the one side would be saying ‘We will spend $694m according to the Karmel Committee report, full stop’, and we on the other side would be saying. We will spend $694m according to the Karmel Committee report and we will establish forever the principle that every child in Australia is entitled to a per capita grant’. If we had a double dissolution the issues would not be just this narrow issue, although I .am prepared to fight an election on that issue; but the real issues would be defence and foreign policy. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) in North Vietnam is saying-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman-

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I ask for my second 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I was about to say that the right honourable gentleman is departing from the terms of the Bill. This is an amendment to the States Grants (Schools) Bill.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It is relevant, Mr Chairman. I will not debate foreign affairs. v

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It is not relevant to the amendment.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I will not debate foreign affairs. It is relevant to the grounds on which a double dissolution would be fought. I will only nominate the subjects; I will not speak about them. Among them would be defence and foreign policy, the economy, inflation-

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Snedden:

– I ask for my second 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If no other honourable member rises, the right honourable member will receive the call automatically. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– The issues would include inflation, taxation, the development of this great country and what is not happening in it today, health, the Australian Industry Develop- ment Corporation Bill, centralism, socialism, pensioners and their plight in this inflationary situation and the industrial situation. Those are the issues. Our principles are right and fie stand by them. We seek a basic pupil grant to all school students in Australia. The base rates of $104 for secondary school students and $62 for primary school students that we seek were 20 per cent of the cost of educating a pupil in a government school last year.

The promises made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Education were that there would be no deduction from any benefit that was previously being paid. That is why we have left the figures at those rates. But the fact is that it ought to be a principle that 20 per cent of the cost of educating a student at any government school should be given to independent schools. It is very important to those great range of systemic schools that are run by the Catholic Church that they have that principle established. It is a principle that the people running those schools are very anxious to maintain. Tonight, by the action of the Government, this principle is being abandoned. I want to say in clear, unequivocal language that when we are returned to government that principle will be restored.

I can speak, not only on behalf of the Liberal Party on this issue, but also on behalf of the Australian Country Party. Whatever has been the outcome of the negotiations that have gone on, however the members of the Country Party vote tonight, I assert that they will stand by the principle that every child should attract to itself as a matter of right and of equity and of justice a per capita payment for education. We stress that categories A, B, C and D schools represent a wide range of schools in the independent school system. They are not all wealthy schools but simply schools caught up by the Karmel Committee formula. That Karmel Committee formula has never been through this House. It has not even been through the Government’s Cabinet. That formula was established solely by the Karmel Committee. When the day comes that this Parliament is prepared to set up an outside body and tell that outside body: ‘You can do what you like and we are bound to follow it’, we are abandoning parliamentary democracy. That will not happen under a government of which the Liberal Party forms part.

I want to make another very important point. We are critical of the arbitrary making of grants to schools on the basis of a studentteacher ratio. It could be most damaging to the student himself, to the parent and to the school. If parents want to make an extra sacrifice to provide more teachers so that there is a lower student-teacher relationship, does that mean that they therefore have to have their grants reduced? The only defence to having their grants reduced is to sack teachers to increase the student-teacher ratio so that the school can be put into a lower category such as D or C instead of staying in A simply because the parents are prepared to make that greater sacrifice for their children. I am not referring just to the so-called ‘silver tails’. These people opposite with this social class attitude-

Mr James:

– Social equality.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I was almost going to use a worse word. I am glad that I stopped myself from saying it. Class warfare is what the Government understands and what it believes in. The plain fact of the matter is that under the terms of this Bill, if it is allowed to survive - it has only 2 years or less to run before we change it - the Government that is so concerned about egalitarianism will be throwing that principle out the door and creating elitism. A narrow group of schools will develop at which the students will be the children of the very wealthy who will start to try to establish a hegemony of influence in Australia economically and socially. The Liberal Party will have no part of that elitism. That will be the automatic consequence of what the Labor Government with its class warfare and its religious bigotry has done.

The Prime Minister’s telegram to the State Premiers stating that there might not be money available for education at the start of the next school year was a sheer political stunt and nothing more. The plain fact of the matter is that the Government, with its responsibility to provide money for various services, has unanimous support from both Houses of this Parliament for the provision of $694m. Does anybody believe that the Government would throw the education system into confusion for the Sake of the $1.5m in question? It is an impossibility that it would have been prepared to put up with that situation.

As for a double dissolution, if the Government wanted a double dissolution on this issue it would take place in March or April next year and the people of Australia would have gone through a month in which school children, the schools and the school teachers would have been deprived of all the benefits proposed in the Karmel Committee report. For the sake of $1.5m the Government would have-

Mr Gorton:

– Out of spite.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– As I am reminded by the right honourable member for Higgins, sheerly out of spite. The plain fact of the matter is that the Government’s statement of the position never was true. I sent telegrams to every State Premier stating that if there were a double dissolution on the question and we were returned to government we would back-date the payments provided for in the Karmel Committee report and that we would also provide grants which would take up the cost of the interest paid on money borrowed in the meantime. We are committed to that and that is where we will stay. And that mere shadow of Whitlam- (Government supporters interjecting) -

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Unfortunately, the sun was not shining brightly when that shadow was created. He has until the next election for this House so honourable members opposite had better make their interjections loud and clear now. We will miss him after the next elections. The Liberal and Country Parties have not agreed on the settlement of this issue. We did agree up until now on this issue but we no longer agree. People will ask whether there is a rift therefore between us. The fact is that the Australian Country Party takes a different attitude in judgment as to the solving of this problem to that which we take. We believe our judgment is right and we believe that our judgment will be reaffirmed when we are in government and we restore the previous principle. In the meantime, I will not allow this issue to come between the 2 parties because in principle both parties agree. I am able to say, as I will say in a joint policy speech at the next general election, that we will, as a coalition government, restore these payments. In the meantime, every member of my Party thoroughly accepts the principle upon which we have stood until now and on which we will stand tonight and vote according to our principles.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– The Australian Country Party supports the amendment to the schedule that has been presented by the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the States-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! At the moment we are dealing with an earlier motion that the Senate amendments, with modifications, be accepted. There is a subsequent motion on the schedule.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am sorry, Mr Chairman. We support this amendment as we supported the amendment to the Schools Commission Bill earlier. We do so, not because the amendment represents just treatment of all Australian school students. It does not. We support the amendment not because it represents an honouring of the firm pledges made by both the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) last year - because it does not. We support the amendment simply because this is the only way we can see of salvaging something from the Government’s utter refusal to honour its obligations and its promises, and its unwillingness to see that common justice is observed in the provision of finance for the benefit of all Australian pupils. We believe that every child, no matter which school he or she attends, is entitled to the benefit of a basic grant from public funds.

We reject the emotional talk about wealthy schools. If schools are well off as far as facilities are concerned, it is because the parents have provided those facilities. We know that many parents who send their children to private schools are by no means wealthy. But they are prepared to make sacrifices so that they can send their children to schools which they believe offer extra opportunities for their children. In other cases, parents are forced to send their children to private schools because there is simply no other school available to them - and this applies in particular to many country children. In still other cases, of course, there are special circumstances within families which necessitate children attending boarding schools. We say that pupils who attend private schools, often in the circumstances I have described, are entitled, by common justice, to a grant from public funds. Our support for this amendment is a result of our concern that the whole education program for 1974 could have foundered and that parents and students alike were being caused anxiety and concern.

Let us look at the situation we were facing. The Schools Commission Bill was in limbo, and the States Grants (Schools) Bill was facing rejection. This meant that the whole education program for 1974 and 1975 was in jeopardy if the Government chose to use the situation as a political weapon. The program was in jeopardy not because of any action by the Opposition parties, but because the Government was not willing to accept proposals by the Opposition which would have meant that the undertakings by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education would have been honoured. I believe there was no prospect at all of the Government backing down. This, of course, will remain a matter of conjecture, but from my knowledge of the circumstances I reached the conclusion that an impasse had been reached, and there would be no retreat by the Government.

The Government was in a position to play the political game very hard and to misrepresent the attitudes of the Opposition. As the Melbourne ‘Age* said in its editorial on 29 November, the Prime Minister’s presentation of this whole matter was an illusion and a trick. But we were faced with the Government’s threat to hold up the whole education program and to blame the Opposition for it, in spite of the fact that we at no time opposed the S694m program, and in fact voted for it. In these circumstances, we believe that there had to be negotiations aimed at resolving the matter. I could see little point in continuing a confrontation which contained a real possibility of jeopardising the whole education program, and the welfare of all of our school pupils. In the face of the Government’s adamant refusal to honour the promises made last year, we proposed that these promises be honoured at least in substantial part. I accept the fact that the Labor Party had placed itself in a position from which it found retreat very difficult. If there was to be any resolution, obviously there was a need for negotiation. Speaking in the House, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and other members on this side of the House, and the Acting Minister for Education, the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Lionel Bowen) himself, raised the possibility of negotiation.

Those negotiations have taken place, and the matter now can be resolved. Briefly the result of the negotiations is this: The Country Party will support in the Senate the Schools

Commission Bill, subject to several amendments which I understand are acceptable to the Government. These amendments will ensure that, firstly, the Commission consults and cooperates with State departments of education and the authorities responsible for and connected with non-government schools; secondly, the highest standards are achieved in both government and non-government schools and that the parents of all children are given the right to choose the kind of education they wish their children to receive, and, finally, that it will he mandatory for the Minister to prescribe by regulation the composition of the State advisory boards and the functions of those boards. These amendments will remove some, but not all, of the Country Party’s objections to the Schools Commission Bill. For its part, the Government has agreed to accept in substantial part our proposals on the allocations to non-government schools. These proposals provide in the case of Category A schools that, instead of there being no grant at all in 1974 and 1975, primary schools will receive grants of $55 per pupil in 1974 and $50 per pupil in 1975, and secondary schools will receive grants of $85 per pupil in 1974 and $78 per pupil in 1975. Whilst there is a minor phasing down of the grants to Category A schools, and only to Category A schools, we do not accept this as a fixed principle or a precedent. This amendment does not represent a ‘phasing out*.

For Category B schools, there will be grants of $60 per pupil in primary schools and $90 per pupil in secondary schools in both 1974 and 1975, compared with the Government’s original proposal for grants of $45 and $65 in both years. For Category C schools, instead of grants of $60 and $90 in each year as proposed by the Government, the grants now will be $65 and $95 in each year. For Category D schools, the only change is in secondary schools, where the grant will be $102 in 1974 instead of $100 as proposed by the Government. The cost to the Government of providing grants on the basis we wanted, and which the Government last year pledged itself to, would have been $8m over the 2 years. The cost of the amended proposals will be about $6.5m over the 2 years. Mr Chairman, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the details of the proposed grants.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– I thank the House. It is interesting to note that the schools affected by these changes are attended by, in the case of primary schools, 43 per cent of the children attending non-government schools, and in the case of secondary schools, 27 per cent of the children attending non-government schools. The outcome of all this is that many children and parents will benefit to a greater extent than they would have under the Government’s proposals and that the Government now will go some of the way towards honouring the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education last year. The Government is by no means going all the way, and it is by no means acting in a way that will ensure that justice is done to all students and parents. But I repeat that faced with a situation in which there was a danger that the result would be far worse, and that the entire education program stood to be held up, the Country Party felt that efforts had to be made-

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Staley:

Mr Chairman-

Mr Anthony:

Mr Chairman, may I continue my speech by claiming my second period now?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Another honourable member is rising and has sought the call.

Mr Staley:

– I defer to the Leader of the Country Party.

Mr Anthony:

– I thank the honourable member for Chisholm.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call the Leader of the Country Party.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

Mr Chairman, faced with a situation in which there was a danger that the result would be far worse, and that the entire education program stood to be held up, the Country Party felt that efforts had to be made to bring about a resolution of an impasse which was not in the interests of the education of the children of Australia. I want it to be known quite clearly that there is no disagreement whatever between the Opposition parties on the principle that per capita grants should continue for all students. That is our policy and it will remain our policy. But faced with an immovable Government as far as the full implementation of that policy was concerned, we believed it was in the interests of all students, including those at non-government schools, that a compromise be negotiated. That is what we did. I end with this comment: It should be clearly understood that the matters we are discussing cover the years 1974 and 1975 and only those 2 years. It will remain the policy of the Opposition parties that per capita grants be provided to all Australian pupils. At the end of the 2 year program we will want again to seek the implementation of our policy in full. The Country Party does not agree with or accept the phasing out of aid to any pupil. If we are still in Opposition at the end of the 2 years we will seek to persuade the Government to adopt this policy, which we believe is correct and just. If we are again in government, which is much more likely, we will take the necessary steps to see that our policy is implemented.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith)PostmasterGeneral and Special Minister of State) (10.0) - I will be brief in my reply because we have other legislation to deal with this evening. I just want to make it clear that it is wrong for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) to be emphasising that he ever supported the $694m project.

Mr Snedden:

– Be honest.

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

– Do not get excited. Just have a look at the situation.

Mr Snedden:

– Be honest.

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

-I am honest. All the right honourable member has done has been to send a telegram.

Mr Wilson:

Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the hour and the requirement in relation to the Sewerage Agreements Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Sewerage Agreements Bill is not before the chamber at the moment.

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

– In the course of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition the emphasis was on what the Opposition was supporting. But I say that never at any stage during the second reading debate on the Bill did members of the Opposition support the program of $694m.

Mr Snedden:

– Rubbish.

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

– Let us make this clear because the Leader of the Opposition did not even take part in the debate. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) led for the Opposition and moved a motion to the effect that the Opposition would not accept the repeal of the existing legislation. An amount of $114m was tied up in that legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has the audacity to walk in here and say that he did not oppose the Government’s proposal. However, page 3931 of Hansard of 27 November shows that the honourable member for Wannon moved that clause 66, the clause which related to the $114m, be opposed. The Opposition forced a division on this clause.

The only Opposition member who has ever shown any sense in regard to this matter has been Senator Rae. The Opposition in this place did not move even one amendment to the second reading of this Bill on the basis of money that could be available. The Opposition ran away in a cowardly fashion saying that it could not move an amendment because the Standing Orders did not allow for it. The Opposition could have moved an amendment to the second reading of the Bill.

Mr Snedden:

– You are getting too excited, old chap.

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

– Not too excited for you. The right honourable gentleman is not happy when I am giving it to him. But the Opposition could have moved for a postponement of the Bill. It did nothing. Yet the Leader of the Opposition came in here tonight and said that the Opposition did everything. But for Senator Rae this chamber would not have had an amendment to consider relating to the mathematics involved in the proposed expenditure. That is how good is the Opposition in this place. The Leader of the Opposition came in here tonight and said that he supports the legislation. But the Opposition had put itself in the position where it was prepared to fight for the principle that $8m should be given to wealthy schools although such action would deny $7O0m being given to those schools which need it. That is the position. We will accept the Opposition’s challenge if it wants to fight an election on that basis.

I am speaking about the question of what the Opposition has done and what it is trying far too late to tell the people it has attempted to do. The Opposition opposed the whole principle of $700m being paid to schools. It went flat out to help those schools which Karmel said might have had some managerial problem but which had no resources problem.

Mr Snedden:

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The practice of this House is for members not to continue to state falsehoods and this is a falsehood.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman is fully aware that the Chair is not in a position to adjudicate on what is said in debate.

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

– Here we have the Leader of the Opposition who talks about religious bigotry and going back on principles. But I ask him to look at the principles of the New South Wales Liberal Party which is in Government in that State. Sir Robert Askin - I will give him his full title - is allocating to the schools-

Mr Snedden:

– Who won the last election?

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

Sir Robert Askin won it. Perhaps he should not have won it.

Mr Snedden:

– Who judged that - the people of New South Wales?

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

– Yes.

Mr Snedden:

– Why do not you go to the people for judgment?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

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

– The Leader of the Oposition has had 22 minutes to try to get out of the situation in which the Opposition finds itself. Let us look at the position in New South Wales. The Commonwealth Government is to give S9.5m to secondary pupils in New South Wales because we do not have a means test. The previous Government would have assisted New South Wales on the basis that the State Government contributed 20 per cent. Sir Robert Askin is giving secondary pupils in New South Wales S3.8m, which is one-third what we are giving them now. This is because the New South Wales Government is operating on a means test basis. But have we ever heard the Leader of the Opposition challenge Sir Robert Askin in this place on this matter of principle? We have not heard one word.

The Opposition has 2 standards: One for Macquarie Street and one for Canberra. That is its policy. The Opposition should not come in here saying that it wanted 20 per cent which would be enough. It would not be enough because Askin is not even giving 20 per cent to the pupils in New South Wales. But that is the Opposition’s policy. It wants 20 per cent to be given by the Commonwealth and 20 per cent by the State. Members of the Opposition do not like hearing the facts, but this is how they have based their approach. We find that out of the New South Wales Liberal Government Budget of$1 81m for education $4m has been provided for non-government schools. What a marvellous effort! No wonder there is need in New South Wales. No wonder there is poverty and over-crowding in schools and poor teachers. Nothing has been done for education under that Liberal philosophy, yet. Members of the Opposition seek to add an even amount to all the uneven sufaces. The effect would be to get the same bad uneven result. The Opposition wants to add exactly the same amount, and that has been its policy all the way through. It still wants an equal amount of per capita grant to be given to each pupil regardless of what school he attends. The Opposition has never at any stage looked at the needs concept.

If we examine the fees charged by category A schools we find that in New South Wales three of these schools are charging more than $900 a year - eight are charging more than $800 a year. In Victoria we find that one category A school is charging more than $1,100 a year, three are charging more than $1,000 a year and five are charging more than $900. Liberal policy is to give students attending these schools the same amount of money as will be given to youngsters in under-privileged areas. Never at any stage has the Opposition looked at the needs principle. The only reason that we have agreed to the proposition put forward tonight is because the Schools Commission has been approved by this Parliament on the basis that a needs concept exists. If that Commission had not been agreed to there would be no point in debating this issue.

We would much rather take this issue to the people on the basis of what we believe to be a proper distribution of resources, but do not let us fool around with that issue. I want to extend some congratulations to the Australian Country Party which contains some men of wisdom who realised that we looked like going to the people to fight for $6m to be given to the wealthy schools, which is what the Liberal Party wanted. The Government decided that now that the Commission has been agreed to it would not be so miserly as to not extend some additional grants. However, we do not accept the principle put forward by the Opposition. We have compromised on the basis that we got the Schools Commission. We will fight the next election on this principle. Let us say that perhaps for once and for all we have taken out of the auction the State aid vote. For once we might get rid of this matter in the interests of this nation, and I believe that that is the best thing that could happen. But whilst ever the Opposition runs around opening science blocks-

Mr Snedden:

– Answer the question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will address the Chair.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will answer the question, Mr Chairman. We have established a Commission on the basis of need and money will be given to students in need. As honourable members know, all schools are eligible to apply for capital grants on the basis of need.

Mr Snedden:

– Why do you not give an answer?

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

– The right honourable gentleman does not want answers; he just wants to ask the questions. That is his problem. I conclude on this note. There would not have been any need for this debate if there had been some reasonable approach to the Commission that we proposed. That was the real issue and members opposite fought it tooth and nail to help a select group of people run education for it. That is where the Opposition failed. When the right honourable member is campaigning in the next election - if he is still the Leader of the Opposition - we will Show this Hansard to him and point out how he opposed any opportunity for the youngsters to get $700m and how he fought tooth and nail to get $8m for school children attending wealthy schools.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

- Mr Chairman, it took until 1973-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

That the requested amendments be made with the modifications circulated by the Minister.

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 -

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

AYES: 81

NOES: 33

Majority . . 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration interrupted.

Progress reported.

page 4661

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 4661

SCHOOLS COMMISSION BILL 1973

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 4661

SEWERAGE AGREEMENTS BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed (vide page 4647).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for all stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4661

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4597).

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– This Bill provides for the establishment of a tribunal of three to determine in some instances and to recommend in other instances salaries which should be paid to different categories of office holders. The proposal is that the Chairman should be either a member of a State judiciary or an exmember of a State judiciary. Quite clearly, the purpose of this is so that no person as a member of the Commission can be fixing salaries by which he himself will benefit. There is a provision for 2 other persons to form the Commission of three. The qualifications for membership of the other 2 members of the Commission have not been fully set out. I do not know who they will be, of course, nor do I know what their qualifications will be. But quite clearly, as the legislation would provide, they must not be affected by their own determinations.

An interesting dichotomy is drawn in relation to the powers of the Commission actually to determine salaries for certain groups - 3 groups, in fact, being the first division officers in the Public Service, statutory officers and members of this Parliament. It is envisaged that the Commission will actually determine those salaries and allowances and they will have the force of law upon the determination. It will still be a prescription by the Parliament because the determination must be laid on the table and it can be disallowed by either House. If it is disallowed it ceases to have the force of law. A lot of people over the years have felt that this is a proper provision to make - that the Parliament should not fix its own salaries and that it ought to be done by an independent commission. I speak on behalf of both Opposition Parties which accept this proposal.

The dichotomy I referred to is in relation to the salaries of Ministers and of the Federal judiciary. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the dichotomy by which the Commission would inquire into and recommend salaries as distinct from fixing them as a matter of determination is for constitutional reasons. I am at a loss to know what are those constitutional reasons because as I recall the Constitution it provides for Ministers and members of Parliament in pretty much the same way - that is, that Ministers will be provided with salaries which, until the Parliament otherwise determines, shall be a given amount. The same formula is adopted for the salaries of members. If my recollection is right the salary is to be £400 a year until the Parliament otherwise provides. The formula being the same in both instances, there must be some other reason for the separation and the assertion by the Minister which I do not challenge. However I would be interested to know the basis upon which it is said that there is a constitutional difficulty about the Ministers.

That constitutional difficulty is probably fortunate because I think the provision for judges certainly ought to be before the Parliament as a piece of legislation. For Ministers it will be the same although it will not be so for members. I do not understand why Ministers are being treated differently from members on this occasion. There may be good reasons, and I am not complaining that they are treated differently, but I think some explanation ought to be offered and I ask for it to assist an understanding of the Bill. The Government quite clearly has decided that this is the best way to determine the matter. It had its genesis in debates in this House in the past about parliamentary salaries. Of course, I think it is basically a recommendation of the Kerr Committee of last year that there should be such a tribunal.

The other interesting thing about the legislation is that the Commission can act on its own initiative but according to the statute will be required to make the inquiry or determination at least once a year. I have said all that I need to say but I have asked a question of the Minister. If he can obtain an answer I will be glad to hear it. Perhaps the Minister can have the indulgence of the House for a couple of minutes to give me the answer.

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

– I do not think I am able to give the answer but the Attorney-General has apparently advised that because of the-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister is closing the debate.

Mr Snedden:

– With the indulgence of the House perhaps the answer can be given and the Minister not close the debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister has the indulgence of the Chair to answer the question.

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

– It is on the advice of the Attorney-General that it should be done this way. By the same token I cannot see why the advice would be this way. I think the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise the point. I notice in the report of Mr Justice Kerr at paragraph 36 he refers to the authority for the payment of salaries and allowances to Ministers and other members. The point the Leader of the Opposition makes is why it should be that way.

Mr Snedden:

– Yes.

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

– Because of that section of the Constitution it is felt it can only be on advice to the Parliament and that it should be followed by an enactment. The Leader of- the Opposition’s point, which I concede, is why should there be any difference when the formula is the same and when the Constitution itself does not draw the distinction. I will endeavour to get that information for the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps supply it tomorrow.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I thank the Minister. Mr Speaker, perhaps I also can have your indulgence to say that I will not delay the Bill pending the answer to my question but if the Minister can provide the information I will not pursue the matter at this stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4662

STATES GRANTS (FRUIT-GROWING RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November (vide page 4010), on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– This legislation was introduced as part of the reconstruction measures designed to offset the very depressed conditions that existed generally about 2 years ago in rural industry. It was intended on its first presentation, at least by those within the industry, not to be part of reconstruction and it is in its present extension and the fact that we have had so few facts presented to the House that I have some concern. There were and are very many problems in determining accurately what sort of markets will exist for what sort of a product in the future. Part of the problem in the fruit industry has been in certain areas of Australia. The problem is not just in quantity; it is also in varieties produced, and the varieties of course have been produced in part according to seasonal conditions.

In Victoria this year these factors have at times been prejudiced by the degree to which there has been an inundation of orchard areas, and as a result quite extensive areas - in this instance of peaches - have been wiped out. So it has been and is extraordinarily difficult knowing in what way to introduce a scheme that will produce the quantity of fruit that is necessary and is capable of being sold and yet is still able to produce for growers a reasonable return. I am disappointed that this scheme has come forward simply as an extension of the old scheme. There are, of course, some slight modifications. The inclusion of canned apricots as well as the fruits that are included in the original scheme, I believe, was one of those factors that was obviously necessary, given the early experience that we had when the scheme was first introduced.

I do not really believe that the fact : hat 1 it has not been necessary to increase the $4.6m means that the scheme has been successful. Indeed the very fact that the money has not been spent worries me because the amount of money provided was intended to be related to what was only a minimal expectancy of the number of trees that would have to be pulled if there was to be a reasonable relationship between the quantity of fruit grown in Australia and the markets available. Therefore, I am concerned that the $4.6m is not extended and that we are told that ample funds are still available from this amount. I support, of course, the 12 months extension. Indeed, when the scheme was first introduced I intimated to all the industry that it was intended that the scheme would have a 12-month trial period and we would look at the scheme to see in what way it could better relate to the needs of industry. I am disappointed that this scheme does not better relate to the needs of industry but rather is just a flat extension of the old scheme with the few minor variants to which I am now referring. One of the features of the legislation is that the scheme has been extended for 12 months.

The Minister in his second reading speech said that since the scheme was designed to assist horticulturists who were in financial difficulties, the Government took the view that there would be no useful purpose in allowing growers, after an extension of the scheme was announced, to withdraw applications to take one more crop off their trees and then re-apply for assistance. I believe that what is proposed is not a wise course of action. Indeed, as most of us will know, this year there has been a critical shortage of some varieties of fruit. I do not like the suggestion of just an arbitrary decision that no help will be given to a person if he takes that one more crop off his trees. Given the seriousness of the supply situation, given the problems that exist at this time - I am told that one cannery in particular in the Riverina is meeting difficulties because of the flooding of the peach crops in the Goulburn Valley in Victoria - I think it would have been far better had orchardists been allowed, subject to agreement between the cannery and the Government, to take that one more crop off their trees and then to have been eligible once again for tree-pull assistance. Indeed, with some of the fruits, I am quite sure that the result would have been directly contrary to that predicted by the Minister in his second reading speech when be said that permitting a grower to take one more crop off his trees was likely to aggravate a growers’ financial problem. As I have suggested, in some areas such a course would have been a help not only to the grower but also to the cannery and could well help the country and those who are our traditional customers.

The other extension has been in the average amount of money that is available as assistance for growers of fresh fruit. This has been increased by $50. Again I see this as worth while. But let me make the point that I think it is most unfortunate that this legislation does not provide for an all-embracing examination of the horticultural industries and give us something which not only will plan for next year but which also will be a positive step towards overcoming the very peculiar problems that exist, for example, in the apple growing areas in Tasmania, particularly in the Huon Valley but also around Launceston and in some of the northern fruit growing areas in Tasmania. The legislation will not overcome some of the problems in the canned fruit areas and certainly will not help those who, in my electorate in the district of Kentucky, have so long had adversities besetting their production level and who, as a result, badly need to be able to get some reasonable financial assistance in order that they may be able to leave their holdings with something and so pursue another way of life.

It is perhaps worth while mentioning that the Kentucky area is not without precedent in the fruit growing areas of Australia, because the holdings are small and many of the growers there were soldier settlers from World War I or are the descendants of those soldier settlers. Over the past 10 years many of them have been living at a standard not much above the bread line. I think it is most unfortunate that in the reconstruction proposal we now have before us there really is not much of an extension of that scheme which was introduced only on a pioneer basis but which was intended as a means of developing a premise from which we might have been able to direct some worthwhile help to the horticultural industry. I regret that for people such as those in Kentucky in my own area this scheme, even now, will not be of much assistance.

Finally, in the Minister’s second reading speech is a fairly optimistic statement on how the Government’s program is moving towards the reconstruction of Australia’s horticultural industries. I do not know whom the Minister thinks be is fooling. Frankly, I am sure that no orchardist would be -fooled. I am sure that no cannery shareholder, cannery operator or cannery employee would be fooled. I am sure that anybody who knows anything about the fruit growing industry in Australia would not look at this part of the Minister’s speech or at the legislation and say: ‘The Government has done all it possibly could to help the fruit growing industry’. There are members in the Australian Labor Party - the present Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), for example - who have in the horticultural industries in their electorates very real problems that just have to be faced up to.

While the Opposition supports the extension of this legislation, we express profound regret that the legislation does not go further, has not provided for an adequate examination of the problems of the fruit growing industries and has not really tried to overcome not only the financial aspects but also the social problems of growers. As a result this piece of legislation is just another instance of the ad hoc approach which regrettably this Government time after time has produced as a policy for the rural sector. This is another piece of legislation which does not get to the root of the problem but rather tries just to skirt around it, providing something that might just satisfy a few more people in part for a short time. I regret that the legislation does not go further and has not given us an adequate report on people who have received assistance and on shortfalls in the initial scheme. It has not recognised that the first scheme was nothing more than a pipe opener intended to develop a meaningful reconstruction scheme for what after all is one of Australia’s vital industries employing a great number of small growers, many of whom, tragically, are still in very parlous circumstances.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

page 4664

ADJOURNMENT

Prices and Incomes Policies- Postal Department

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– On Thursday last, 2 or 3 days before the referen dum, speaking in this House, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that all academic economists in Australia believed that the national Parliament in Australia should have the jurisdiction to make laws on prices and incomes. When later the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) took him to task and mentioned a statement by Professor Michael Parkin, who thought to the contrary, the Prime Minister said:

The honourable gentleman quite misrepresents him.

These things stand in Hansard. Later that day 18 academic economists signed a letter and published it. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Advice on referendums

Sir, - We the undersigned are professional economists working in industry, finance and the universities. Some of us have made an intensive study of the use and effects of prices and incomes policies in other countries and others of us have had experience with the operation of controls in a wide variety of industries.

While we do not all agree on all questions concerning anti-inflation policies we all share the carefullyarrivedat judgment that prices and incomes controls are not a useful means of combating inflation and have effects which can be very damaging.

The experience of using prices and incomes controls in other countries (and most notably in the U.S.A. and the U.K.) shows that there is not a single case on record where they have permanently lowered the rate of inflation.

Additionally, such controls have led to shortages of goods and services whose prices have been held back relatively severely and also to serious industrial unrest and increased strike activity among groups whose incomes have been disproportionately affected. The experience of the use of direct controls on prices and incomes in Australia during the 1940s adds further support to this view.

We note that 16 professors of economics in a number of Australian universities have written urging the reverse position to that which we are advocating. You and your readers will understandably be wondering how two groups of economists can reach such divergent conclusions. We, like you are puzzled, but while we have given reasons for the conclusions which we reach, the 16 professors give no such reasons.

In view of the disruption inflicted on those countries which have used direct controls on prices and incomes we regard Australia as fortunate in having a constitutional limitation on the powers of Federal Government to impose similar controls here. We urge your readers to join us in preserving this valuable feature of our Constitution by voting ‘No’ to both questions of the forthcoming referendum. (Professor) Maureen Brunt, Monash University (Professor) R. C. Gates, University of Queensland (Professor) W. P. Hogan, Sydney University (Professor) W. Howard, Monash University (Professor) Ronald Jones, Rochester University, U.S.A. (Professor) Ross Parish, Monash University (Professor) Alan Powell, Monash University (Professor) Michael Parkin, Manchester University, U.K. (Professor) C. G. T. Simkin, Sydney University (Professor) S. J. Turnovsky, Australian National University (Dr) Colin Clark, Monash University (Dr) Peter Riach, Monash University (Dr) Lionel Ward, Economist (Mr) G. T. Bills, Roach, Ward and Co. (Mr) H. A. C. Falconer, F. R. Morgan and Co.

  1. F. Holder, Economic Adviser to the Bank of New South Wales (Mr) L. McGregor, Monash University (Mr) Donald Merry, Economic consultant.
Mr WENTWORTH:

– I thank the House. Subsequently, the Prime Minister was asked about this while he was in Perth and he endeavoured to cover up his mistake by saying something which I think was utterly unjustified and rather scandalous. He said that the economists who had signed that letter were secondraters. Indeed, he even went to the extent of saying that they were - and I quote exactly - even third rate. He said this at a Press Club luncheon, and it is reported by Miss Sutherland, who was the Australian Broadcasting Commission correspondent at that luncheon, although the official transcript of what the Prime Minister said is not yet available.

I want to put on the line the facts in regard to that letter. That letter was signed by 18 economists, including, as I have said, Professor Parkin. Let us look at some of the signatories whom the Prime Minister described as secondraters or third-raters. They include Professor Blunt of the Monash University, who is a collaborator with Professor Karmel, an expert on industrial structure, monopoly and competition. They include also Professor Gates of the University of Queensland, the Dean of the Faculty and head of the School of Commerce and Economists, a consultant on regional and urban affairs to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) and a consultant to Professor Henderson, I understand, on the poverty inquiry, although in an unofficial capacity. Professor Hogan of the University of Sydney is the head of Economics Department there and an expert on national industrial policy. He recently visited Bang Kok for consultations with the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs and is a consultant to the World Bank.

Professor Parish, of Monash University, is a consultant to the World Bank and an expert in agricultural economics. Professor Parkin, of Manchester University, whom I have mentioned, is a consultant to the Reserve Bank of Australia on counter-inflationary policies and is a recognised international authority. Professor Powell of Monash University is a leadingeconometrician. Professor Simkin, of the University of Sydney, was a leading New Zealand economist and for 6 years was a consultant to ECAFE. He is an expert on macroeconomics. Professor Howard comes from the Monash University and Professor Jones from Rochester University in the United States. The distinguished Professor Turnovsky. of the Australian National University, is an economic theoretician. These are the people whom the Prime Minister denigrated by describing them as second raters or third raters. They are some of theleading economists in Australia, and their international reputations would far outrank the reputations of the other economists who recommended a ‘yes’ vote and on whom the Prime Minister relied.

We must consider this matter, and the House owes to the country an opportunity to look at it in perspective. Firstly, let me say that the Prime Minister misled the House absolutely when he said that all academic economists supported a ‘yes’ vote. They did not. But, when he was proved wrong and when the man he had quoted, Professor Parkin, advocated a ‘no’ vote, the Prime Minister went to the lengths of describing these professional people as second raters and third raters. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not nice for a Prime Minister, in order to cover up his own misstatement in this House, to slander people in their professionl capacity. But we know his waspish tongue. We know that he considers himself above every canon of truth and decency. He is the Prime Minister; he can say what he likes and his word will be taken. He uses this great power to endeavour to destroy the professional reputation of economists whose only crime is that they differ with him on a technical matter.

It is completely disgraceful that a professional man should be held up to this kind of vituperation by the Prime Minister. It is a matter of shame, and the Prime Minister owes an apology to the House, to the country and to these economists. Let me read what was said by Professor Parkin immediately after the

Prime Minister had made this statement. I quote the following from the ‘West Australian’:

Professor Parkin said in Sydney yesterday that Mr Whitlam s dismissal of the group as ‘second raters’ was outrageous. The signatories included some of the most distinguished economists in Australia. One of them, Dr Colin Clark, of Melbourne University, was the most distinguished economist in Australia - easily, there is no dispute in the profession about that.’ Professor Parkin said that Professor Gates of Queensland was highly regarded and that Professors Hogan and Simkin, of Sydney, could not be regarded as lightweights. All three were co-signatories of the letter.

The Prime Minister, for his own base political purposes, in an endeavour to mislead the people of Australia, told them something that was untrue, namely, that every academic economist supported a ‘yes’ vote. When he was caught out on that, he did not think about the reputation of these men; all he thought of was his own political advantage. He went to the lengths of putting out untrue and absolutely unjustified statements that these people were second raters and third raters. This was an endeavour, at the last moment, on the day before the referendum vote, to deceive the Australian people. I can only say, with relief, that the attempt did not succeed. The Australian people, whether because of this letter from the economists or for some other reason, saw through the Prime Minister; they saw through what the Government was trying to do at the referendum. By a very decided and almost unprecedented vote in every State in Australia they called the Government to task; they said that they did not trust the Government. It was a very reasonable thing for them to do. How could they trust a government led by a man who, at the last moment, in this House, said things which were untrue in order to bolster up his case before the people and then, when he was caught out, endeavoured ignominiously, meanly and horribly, to cover himself by vituperation, by slander and by trying to take away the reputations of professional men who are leaders in their field but who, like every other professional man in any field, are at the mercy of someone who holds - temporarily, I hope - the kind of authority the Prime Minister still wields in this place and in the country. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself, and I hope that he will give to this House and to the country the apology which is due.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– In the very brief time remaining, I should like to refer to the Australian Post Office Telefinder Service. In August 1972 the Post Office took over the Sydney and Melbourne radio paging networks operating the Telmar system. At that time it was announced that the system would be upgraded to use miniature receivers, and Telmar closed down. Motorola Communications was nominated as the supplier of base equipment. The Post Office entered into this contract, knowing that only Motorola receivers were compatible with the system. At this stage, Motorola is still the only company which manufactures suitable receivers. In June 1973 the Postmaster-General stated that the new system would be switched on in September. Arrangements were made with distributors to market the receivers, including one arrangement with Allan Electronics Pty Ltd, which had marketed Telmar in New South Wales. This company holds some 500 firm orders from doctors, businessmen and others for paging equipment.

The announced cost of the system, at an allinclusive rental of $16 a month for a 3-year period, is somewhat less expensive than the cost of leasing a Telmar unit plus the additional service charges which total approximately $18 a month. To date, the system has not been switched on and no information as to the projected starting date of the service has been given, apart from the earlier announcement. My concern is that, having paid such a large sum of money, the Australian Post Office, despite the earlier announcements, should at this stage be doing something positive on this important question. I suggest that it is a matter that the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) might look at very closely. The Australian Post Office undoubtedly decided that the arrangement which is now pending was the best arrangement for this system which it is proposed to extend to other capital cities and Canberra, but it is very bad to find that the suppliers of the equipment are being held up, are incurring heavy losses and are retrenching staff, as well as facing a loss of confidence on the part of existing and expected clients. I appeal to the Postmaster-General to have this matter resolved speedily so that the paging service might be introduced without further delay and so that the utilisation of an expenditure of $500,000 might take effect, because Post Office earning on this investment obviously is not occurring while this situation continues.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 4667

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Vehicle Spare Parts: Shipping Charges (Question No. 1153)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trans port, upon notice:

  1. Is there a difference in shipping charges in excess of 100 per cent more, for vehicle spare parts used for repair over those used for manufacture, charged by conference lines from Europe and the United Kingdom.
  2. If so;

    1. what are the reasons for these extra charges to the consumer, and
    2. will he intervene to have a reduction made in these charges.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The difference is close to 100 per cent.

(2)

  1. The reason for the difference in freight rates is that the vehicle parts for use in manufacture are imported in substantial quantities on a per annum basis as compared with spare parts used for repair. A lower rate for volume shipments of motor vehicle components is there possible.
  2. The freight rates are negotiated overseas. The role of the Australian Government is limited under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to outwards cargo shipping from Australia.

Australian Merchant Seamen: Compensation (Question No. 1170)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. It is a fact that Australian merchant seamen who served with the United States Navy in the New Guinea war zone during World War II receive no compensation payments for war wounds or effects from either the Australian or the United States Government.
  2. If so, will the Minister take steps to rectify the situation and have benefits extended to them.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Australians who served with the United Stales Navy in the New Guinea war zone during World War II are not eligible for benefits under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act, which was never intended to apply to persons serving in the naval forces of Australia or any other country. Some Australians served with the United States Army Service of Supply, South West Pacific Area, but services in such ships also was never intended to attract the benefits of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. It is not known whether any Australian who served in the United States Navy or the

United States Army Services of Supply received any compensation for war wounds or effects from the United States Government.

  1. It is not proposed to change such a basic aspect of the legislation after it has been applied for over 30 years. However, should there be any cases in which Australian merchant seamen suffered war injuries in the course of service with the United Slates Army Services of Supply, South West Area, for which they have been unable to get any form of compensation, I would be pleased to have them examined.

Australian Government Departments (Question No. 1201)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many positions were abolished in each Department in 1972-73.
  2. What positions were abolished in each Department.
  3. When were the abolished positions created.
  4. What were the reasons for their abolition.
  5. Does the Public Service Board have a section or branch concerned directly with the role of reviewing possible redundant positions in Departments.
  6. If so, how is this role undertaken.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The number of positions abolished in each Department in 1972-73 is shown in Table A. The table excludes positions abolished and re-created in other Departmental establishments as a result of changes in the Administrative Arrangements Order effected in December 1972; a broad summary of establishments abolished and re-created as part of those re-arrangements is provided separately in Table B.
  2. Table C lists, by designation and classification level, the individual positions abolished in each Department during 1972-73. This listing excludes those abolitions associated with changes in the Administrative Arrangements Order implemented in December 1972 and summarised in Table B.
  3. Since the establishment records maintained by the Public Service Board do not include, in most instances, a reference to the dates of creation of the individual positions abolished during 1972-73, the detailed information sought by the right honourable member is not readily available.
  4. The abolitions listed in Table C are the result of a large number of individual establishment rearrangements effected during 1972-73. Information sought by the right honourable member as to reasons for each abolition would need to be extracted from the separate file records relating to each case. In view of the considerable amount of clerical work which would be involved in extracting the information I am unwilling to authorise the expenditure required to answer the right honourable member’s question in the precise form sought. However, the general reasons for abolition of positions within Departmental establishments include: the function or activity for which the positions were created no longer exists variation of workload and changing priorities within a Department reorganisations of establishments within a Department including the transfer of work to other positions
  5. Yes, the Organisation Division in the Board’s Central Office and the Board’s establishments inspectorate in each State.
  6. The Board’s establishment inspectors in its Central and State Offices examine overall establishment requirements within Departmental areas subject to reorganisation proposals. Additionally, the number of positions provided within particular Departmental work areas may be reviewed in the light of changing workloads. Also, Departments are required, at six monthly intervals, to supply to the Board details of individual positions which have remained vacant for periods in excess of six months.

Commonwealth Hostels (Question No. 1211)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. Has he given consideration to the introduction of a scheme whereby young people accommodated in Commonwealth Hostels in Canberra, who are employed in junior positions in the Public Service and earn relatively low incomes, might be given some form of subsidy to enable them to avoid financial difficulties in paying accommodation charges.
  2. If so, what was the result of that consideration.
  3. If not, will he now give consideration to the matter.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. (2) (3) Young people recruited to junior positions in the Public Service from outside Canberra, Queanbeyan and their environs, who reside in Commonwealth Hostels in Canberra, are eligible to receive assistance towards meeting the cost of their accommodation through the Canberra Boarding Allowance. The amount of the allowance payable, which is determined by the Public Service Board, depends on the salary of the applicant and is reviewed from time to time. An increase in the scale of allowances was announced in October with effect from 23 September 1973, the date on which hostel tariffs were increased.

Australian Government Newspapers (Question No. 1256)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government contemplating producing an Australian Government newspaper.
  2. Is a feasibility study being undertaken to look at such a proposition.
  3. Has an interdepartmental committee been set up to study the proposition; if so, which Departments are represented on the committee.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Although under Standing Order 144 it would not be appropriate to announce Government policies in answer to a question on notice, the attention of the honourable member is invited to the platform of the Australian Labor Party.
  2. No, but I am informed that a feasibility study has been included in plans laid down for the Research Section of the Department of the Media, to be undertaken when the establishment of the Department has reached an adequate level to undertake such work.
  3. No.

Donkeys: Deaths (Question No. 1326)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the recent reports of the high death rate of donkeys being transported from Derby, Western Australia, to the Eastern States, did a large proportion of the deaths occur on Commonwealth Railways.
  2. If so, will he investigate the matter with a view to seeing what may be done to prevent future occurrences and ascertaining where the responsibility lay for this particular incident.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Of the total of 164 donkeys despatched from Derby, 21 apparently died on the road journey to Alice Springs, 6 died in the cattle yards at Alice Springs prior to their consignment to Commonwealth Railways and 12 died on the rail journey to Marree.

I understand from advice received from Commonwealth Railways that the 143 donkeys received in Alice Springs were inspected by the local stock inspector of the Department of Primary Industry and that they were found to be in generally weak condition showing signs of distress after the long road journey. The donkeys included a number of mares in foal and a number with head injuries due to the restricted headroom in the lower decks of the road transport unit. Press reports have indicated that the animals were weakened when their road train was bogged for two days on the journey from Derby to Alice Springs.

The donkeys were rested at Alice Springs and were inspected by the local stock inspector and a representative of the RSPCA who considered them fit for travel prior to their consignment over Commonwealth Railways.

The responsibility for ensuring that the livestock offered for carriage over Commonwealth Railways is in a fit condition to travel rests wilh the consignor.

Motor Vehicle Driving Licences (Question No. 1402)

Mr Bennett to ask the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

With reference to public statements criticising the universal licensing of drivers of cars and riders of motor cycles irrespective of the power of the machine, will he discuss the matter with licensing authorities with a view to instituting a driver examination and licence system which takes into consideration the power of the vehicle involved and the experience of the driver or rider similar to the differentiation which now exists between car and truck licences.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The Australian Transport Advisory Council of which I am Chairman has looked at suggestions made from time to time to issue driver’s and rider’s licences relating to the power of the car or motor cycle to be driven. In so far as motor cyclists are concerned, Council is awaiting the results of a study commissioned by my Department of the relationship between motorcycle power, rider experience and accident involvement. It is expected that the results of the report will be considered by Council at its next meeting.

The merit of special licences for car drivers needs to be examined in-depth, to assess its possible contribution to greater safety. Research is currently being planned by the Department of Transport which will enable a proper assessment of the need for such a measure.

Omega Navigation Station (Question No. 1431)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as stated by a State colleague, Mr A. Wade, M.L.A. for Newcastle, in a letter to a Deniliquin resident and reported by him in a local newspaper, that the Minister had told Mr Wade that the Omega navigation station will not be built at Deniliquin.
  2. If so, where is the most favoured area for the establishment of the station.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. I have said to a number of people, and I think this might include Mr Wade, M.L.A. for Newcastle, that no site has yet been selected for Omega, but if Government decides to go ahead with establishing the Australian station, Deniliquin is not a likely site - notwithstanding what has been printed from time to time in newspapers.

However, before a specific site area can be selected or even finally eliminated, the engineering studies, which were deferred pending the inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, would need to be reactivated and taken to a more advanced stage of investigation. Until this happens, I would prefer that siting options not be closed off irrevocably.

If the project should proceed, I can assure the honourable member that the final site selection will be based strictly on the appropriate technical, practical and economic criteria.

  1. My Department has indicated in a submission (dated 25 June, 1973), to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Inquiry into Omega, that the preferred general location for the Australian station would be Tasmania, with the Central Murray River District as second preference.

This latter area is defined broadly as the area centred on the section of the Murray River between Swan Hill and Echuca, extending southward to Boort in Victoria and northward to Moulamein and Deniliquin in N.S.W. The above references are based upon technical considerations and represent the stage reached in siting investigations prior to the inquiry by the Parliamentary Committee.

National Superannuation Scheme (Question No. 1446)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department participate in any interdepartmental committee or committees dealing with any, aspects of the proposed National Superannuation Scheme or the National Superannuation Enquiry.
  2. If so, will he name the committee or committees.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

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

Heavy Metal Pollution (Question No. 1562)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all areas in Australia that have been identified or are identifiable as areas of (a) mercury pollution, (b) cadmium pollution, (c) lead pollution, (d) zinc pollution and (e) pollution due to all other heavy metals.
  2. When were the areas first identified as polluted.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

The Australian Government does not have the information to compile such a list. However, the Australian Environment Council, through its Marine Sub-committee, is reviewing the problem of heavy metal pollution of the sea and seafoods with particular reference to effluent sources on the Australian coastline.

Department of Overseas Trade: Revaluation (Question No. 291)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

Were he and his Department consulted in the two revaluation decisions announced by the Prime Minister; if not, why not.

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

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

Decisions relating to the revaluation of the Australian currency were taken in accordance with the normal procedures for decisions of this kind.

Canberra Civic Area: Car Parking Requirements (Question No. 786)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the National Capital Development Commission completed its examination of the car parking space requirements in the Civic area of Canberra to cope with the increasing needs of the next two years.
  2. If not, when will its examination be concluded and the report made public.
Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) There is no specific, formal study, but as part of normal planning, the NCDC is continuing its assessment of parking space requirements in Canberra to cope with future needs including the requirements of the next two years in the Civic area.

Changes in the control of existing parking space have been publicised widely as part of the introduction of pay parking by the Minister for the Capital Territory, The joint policy of the Commission and the Department is to ensure adequate short-stay parking is available to maintain the vitality and convenience of the shopping and professional segments of the city.

This means that an increasing proportion of the existing parking space will be allocated for short-stay purposes rather than for use by commuters. As further development of the city takes place on the existing temporary parking areas, the provision of parking structures for shoppers and visitors will be considered. However, it should not be expected that the full demand for commuter parking can be met.

Statements are being prepared on transport and parking policy with special reference to the City Centre and will be made public as soon as possible.

Australian Plastics Industry (Question No. 831)

Mr Whittorn:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Secondary Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his predecessor’s press release of 4 August 1973, relating to the tariff cuts as they affect trade with New Zealand, is ita fact that, as a result of his predecessor’s action in reducing preferential rates of duty by 25 per cent of the general rates, tariff rates on plastic products have not been reduced by the 25 per cent, as generally stated, but by amounts around 50 per cent and 62) per cent.

    1. If so, does this leave the Australian plastics industry with virtually no protection at all because New Zealand buys its raw materials at world parity prices whereas Australian prices are set at higher levels to protect the resident Australian chemical industry.
    2. Were the tariff rates applicable prior to the recent cuts arrived at after 6 years of investigation and tariff hearings.
    3. Is it a fact that, but for the current world shortage of raw materials, the Australian plastics industry would be in a position where it could be irretrievably harmed.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. Following the general tariff cuts announced on 18 July, tariff rates against certain products from New Zealand including certain plastic products, were reduced by more than one-quarter of the rates previously operating in order to maintain margins of preference existing at the time of the cuts. This was in conformity with the Government’s undertakings and commitments in relation to New Zealand. 2 and 4. In the event of any firm or company being seriously affected by imports from any source, including New Zealand, the Tribunal established by the Government is authorised to recommend appropriate remedial action. The procedures to be followed by a firm or company affected are outlined in the Government’s statement of 18 July.

Total imports of plastic materials and products in 1972/73 amounted to $127 million of which New Zealand supplied$ 1.8 million, or 1.4 per cent of total imports.

  1. The Tariff Board’s Report on Plastic Products was signed on 2 April 1971. The reference was fowarded to the Tariff Board on 12 October 1965.

Australian Capital Territory: Traffic Density (Question No. 826)

Mr Whan:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. What was the average traffic density of the final 2.2 miles of the road connecting Fyshwick and the border of the Australian Capital Territory at Queanbeyan:

    1. during each year from 1965 to 1973; and
    2. between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on a week day during 1973.
  2. What roads in the Australian Capital Territory have a higher traffic density per lane during peak periods than this section.
  3. What was the method adopted to allocate expenditure on road construction in the Australian Capital Territory for 1973-74.
  4. Is it intended to upgrade the FyshwickQueanbeyan Road; if so, when will work start, and what type of road is planned.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. (a) The average daily traffic volume on this part of Canberra Avenue for the years 1967 to 1973 is set out below. No figures are available for 1965 and 1966.
  1. Between 4 and 6 p.m. on a week day in 1973 the average traffic volume is 3550 vehicles being approximately 2350 in the major direction (to Queanbeyan) and approximately 1200 in the minor direction (to Canberra).

    1. The roads in the Australian Capital Territory which have a higher average traffic volume per lane during peak periods are Adelaide Avenue, Hindmarsh Drive, Capital Circle and Cotter Road. It should be noted, however, that traffic volumes per lane are affected by many factors such as the presence or absence of traffic signals.
    2. Expenditure on roads in the Australian Capital Territory takes into account not only the need to improve existing traffic routes, but also the necessity to construct new roads to serve developing areas. Factors taken into account include safety, intersection capacity and the need to maintain a balanced network of transport facilities.
    3. Yes. The project is included in the National Capital Development Commission’s draft new works program for 1974-75. The present proposal envisages construction of a new divided roadway with two lanes in each direction which will merge in the first instance with the existing road at a point adjacent to the Harman Naval Station. However, the full benefit of this improvement will be apparent only when complementary works are undertaken on the New South Wales section of the road, and the railway bridge.

Jam Imports (Question No. 817)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Secondary

Industry, upon notice:

  1. What quantity of jam has been imported from what countries and at what cost during thelast 3 years.
  2. What percentage of total jam consumption do these imports represent.
  3. What tariff applies to jam imports and how will the 25 per cent tariff cut affect the quantity of imports.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to parts (1) and (2) of the question.

The table below shows the quantity and value of imports classified under statistical items 053.30.01 Marmalades’ and 053.30.09. ‘Jams, fruit jellies, fruit puree and pastes’, in the Australian Import Commodity Classification, for the years ended 30 June 1970 to 1973

  1. Imports, as a percentage of the apparent consumption of jams (including conserves, jam-jellies, etc.) are as follows for the years 1969-70 to 1971-72. Consumption statistics for 1972-73 are not yet available.
  1. Jam is included under Customs Tariff item 20.05.000, the general duty rate for which is $0.043 per kilogram plus 7.5 per cent primage and the preferential rate$0.0315 per kilogram plus 3.75 per cent primage. The rate applicable to New Zealand is $0.0283 per kilogram or if lower $0.0413 per kilogram less 15 per cent of the value. Following the 25 per cent tariff cut a special import watch has been instituted on a wide range of products.

Imports of jam for the two months August and September this year were 247,975 kilograms compared with 105,005 kilograms for the same period last year.

Tariff Reductions (Question No. 840)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for

Secondary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Will certain large retailers be able to profit extensively from the 25 per cent tariff reduction by importing goods at a cheaper cost than Australian made equivalents and, without infringing the provisions of the Prices Justification Act, by selling these goods at the same price as the Australian made equivalents.
  2. If so, how will the tariff cuts reduce inflation or the cost of goods to the purchaser.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. It is possible that some importers and retailers will not reduce their prices by the full amount required to give effect to the tariff reductions. The Government will however look to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices and the Prices Justification Tribunal to expose those who add extravagant margins to the prices of imported goods, or who fail to pass on savings resulting from the tariff reductions.
  2. In making the decision to reduce tariffs the Government was conscious of the urgent need to take major steps to deal with inflation by increasing competition and stimulating in the short term a sufficiently large inflow of additional imports to meet pressing demand. An increase in the supply of goods, particularly consumer goods, must cause pressure against price increases and thereby assist in curbing inflation. There is no single cure for inflation. The Government’s action in reducing tariffs should be viewed as part of a complex of measures intended to have an overall beneficial effect for the great majority of Australians.

Bankruptcy Discharges (Question No. 1033)

Mr Wilson:

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

  1. How many persons who were undischarged bankrupts on 1 July 1972 were discharged from bankruptcy by operation of section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1970 during the period 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1973.
  2. What periods of time elapsed between the dates from which bankrupts became entitled to a discharge under section 149 and the dates when their discharge upon bankruptcy was gazetted.
  3. How many persons discharged from bankruptcy by operation of law were awaiting gazettal of their discharge as at 30 June 1973 and how long had these people been waiting for the gazettal.
  4. Will the Minister ensure that discharges from bankruptcy by operation of section 149 are gazetted within one month of their occurrence.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The information sought by the honourable member relates generally to the gazettal, pursuant to section 310 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1970, of discharges from bankruptcy by the operation of section 149 of that Act which have occurred since 4 March 1971.

Section 149 provides for the discharge by operation of law upon the expiration of the times fixed by that section of each person who immediately before 4 March 1968 was an undischarged bankrupt or who might thereafter become a bankrupt. The operation of section 149 is subject to certain exceptions in that it does not have the effect of discharging: persons who are no longer living at the relevant date; persons who are undischarged from an earlier bankruptcy at the relevant date; persons who have been discharged or whose bankruptcy has been annulled by an order of the Court made prior to the relevant date; persons in respect of whose discharge pursuant to section 149 an objection has been entered by the trustee, the Registrar or a creditor and not withdrawn.

The identification of all the persons falling within the first and second of the abovementioned exceptions is virtually impossible and it is therefore difficult to state with accuracy the number of persons who have been discharged by the operation of section 149 on or after 4 March 1971, the date upon which discharges pursuant to that section first occurred. It is estimated that on that date more than 25,000 persons, including persons who became bankrupt under State laws relating to bankruptcy and insolvency, may have been so discharged and that since that date a further 4,000 persons have been so discharged.

The considerable volume of work involved in the identification of the large number of persons who have been discharged by the operation of section 149 because of the exceptions mentioned above, has limited the gazettal of all the discharges which have occurred.

The Attorney-General is presently considering, in conjunction with a number of proposals for amendments to other sections of the Bankruptcy Act, appropriate amendments to sections 149 and 310 (3) (a) to overcome the practical difficulties which these sections have revealed in complying with the requirement to gazette discbarges by the operation of section 149.

In the meantime, some additional Registry staff have been provided and a program has been commenced in some, but not all, Bankruptcy Districts to gazette discharges pursuant to section 149. So far as can be ascertained, in every case where a formal request has been received by a Registrar for the gazettal of a discharge by the operation of section 149, the discharge has been gazetted.

The following additional information is supplied in answer to the honourable member’s questions:

The precise number of persons is not ascertainable for the reasons mentioned above but it is estimated that approximately 1,800 persons ‘ were so discharged.

Of those discharges which have been gazetted, the delay has varied between 1 month and 13 months.

The number is unknown but probably exceeds 27,500. The first of these discharges became operative on 4 March 1971.

Appropriate amendments of the Bankruptcy Act to overcome the practical difficulties resulting from the operation of section 149 are under consideration.

Australian Public Service: Third Division (Question No. 1050)

Mr Cooke:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many persons were appointed to the Third Division of the Australian Public Service in each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972.
  2. How many of those appointed were transferred or promoted from the Fourth Division of the Service in each of those years.
  3. How many Fourth Division officers sat for the Commonwealth Selection Test in an attempt to obtain a position in the Third Division in each of those years.
  4. How many of these were transferred or promoted to the Third Division in each of those years.
  5. How many Fourth Division Officers, educationally qualified for entry into the Third Division, and who have sat for the Commonwealth Selection Test, have still not been appointed to the Third Division as at 31 August 1973.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Public Service Board does not keep a record follows:

The numbers of persons appointed to the Third Division of the Australian Public Service in each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 were:

  1. Transfers and promotions of permanent officers from the Fourth Division to the Third Division are additional to appointments, which refer only to the entry of new staff to the Public Service. The numbers of transfers and promotions from the Fourth Division to the Third Division in all designations for the years mentioned were:

Details relating to the specific Third Division designations to which Fourth Division officers were transferred are presented in the Statistical Appendices of the Public Service Board’s Annual Reports (pages 136 and 137 of the 1973 Report).

  1. Only applicants seeking appointment or transfer to the Third Division as Clerk, Class 1, are required to sit for a Clerical Selection Test, formerly called the Commonwealth Selection Test. Entry to the Third Division as Clerk, Class 1, is competitive between educationally qualified candidates whether from outside the Service or from the Fourth Division. All appointments and transfers to Clerk, Class 1, are made in order of marks obtained in the Clerical Selection Test. The Public Service Board does not record details of applicants in a way that enables the separate identification of officers of the Fourth Division from other applicants who sat for the Test.
  2. The numbers of Fourth Division officers who were transferred to the Third Division to Clerk, Class 1, positions after sittings for the Clerical Selection Test were:
  3. Fourth Division officers who are not transferred to the Third Division after twelve months from the date of completing the Clerical Selection Test must register with the Public Service Inspector if they desire their names to be retained on the order of merit list for transfer to the Third Division as Clerk, Class 1, and at yearly intervals thereafter.

As at 31 August 1973 there were 997 Fourth Division officers on the order of merit list for transfer to the Third Division as Clerk. Class 1.

The Public Service Board has advised me as of officers educationally qualified for the Third Division but not registered as applicants lot transfer to the Third Division as Clerk, Class 1.

*The statistics quoted as “Preliminary” figures are those published in the Annual Reports of the Public Service Board for the respective years. Revised figures shown in brackets, were compiled after publication as further documentation became available.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 December 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731212_reps_28_hor87/>.