House of Representatives
3 April 1974

28th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1974

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 899

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Whales

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

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

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to 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 licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connor, Mr Bennett, Mr Berinson, Mr Garland, Mr Lamb and Mr Maisey.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

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

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

That 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 Snedden, Mr Drury, Mr Giles and Mr McLeay.

Petitions received.

Human Rights Bill

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 for the exercise of complete religious freedom and for the promotion of a liberal and egalitarian society, Church and State need to be kept separate.
  2. that this principle is recognised in Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.
  3. that the taxing of any citizens to propagate or support any religion is contrary to this principle and a violation of human rights.

Your petitioners humbly pray that Part II, Section 3, of the proposed Bill of Human Rights, which now reads:

No one shall be subject to coercion which will impair his freedom to have or to adopt a belief or religion of his choice, be amended to read further: and no revenue derived in any way from any Australian citizen shall be appropriated by the Australian Government, or by a State government, or by a municipal government, for the propagation or support of any religion.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Coates and Mr Sherry.

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 Berinson and Mr Corbett.

Petitions received.

Human Rights Bill

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 Human Rights Bill will deprive free Australian citizens of religious liberty and freedom of worship, and parents and guardians of the right to choose the moral and religious education of their children in that:

  1. The Government could introduce regulations as to the time, place and manner in which people may manifest their religion and beliefs.
  2. The Bill excludes the recognition of the family as to the natural and fundamental group unit of society.
  3. The Bill does not explicitly recognise the liberty of parents, and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House not proceed with the Human Rights Bill.

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

Petitions received.

National Anthem

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 of Forrest respectfully showeth:

That some enfranchised Australians will not be asked to vote in the proposed poll to select a national anthem.

That the proposed poll to select a national anthem does not determine whether an alternative is desired to ‘God Save The Queen’ as a national anthem and if so, what alternative is desired.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a poll encompassing all enfranchised Australians be held in conjunction with the next federal general elections or referendum to determine whether an alternative is desired to ‘God Save The Queen’ as a national anthem and if so, what alternative is desired.

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

Petition received.

Pornography

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 ‘hard-core’ pornography degrades not only the original possessors, but the possessors’ families and friends in particular, and the community in general.

That while proposed legislation to allow adults to import privately ‘hard-core’ pornography may have superficial attraction as a defence of personal freedom in a civilised country, personal freedom must be restricted where it endangers the community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House reject any proposed legislation to allow adults to import privately ‘hard-core’ pornography.

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

Petition received.

War Service Homes

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

The humble petition of electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That ex-servicewomen who enlisted during World War II have been discriminated against in the interpretation and administration of the War Service Homes Act 1918-1971, and Defence Service Homes Act 1918-1973.

Whilst on enlistment they were prepared to serve in any area, ex-servicewomen who did not actually serve outside Australia are at present debarred from War Service Homes rights.

Yourpetitioners therefore humbly pray that immediate action be taken to grant War Service Homes rights to all wartime ex-servicewomen, whether married or single and without restriction as to dependants, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by MrJarman.

Petition received.

Industrial Solar Energy

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

The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Deakin respectfully showeth:

That at the moment the Government is providing 50 times larger funds for research into atomic energy than for research into solar energy; that, on the other hand, latest scientific research indicates that energy production from the atom has become obsolete and undesirable. This is because of its threat to the environment, both during operation and during removal of its radioactive wastes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government urgently sets aside sufficient funds for research into the production of industrial solar energy which could be ideally established in the arid lands of Australia. We suggest that the ratio of Government funding be reversed - away from atomic in favour of solar energy. We feel strongly that since nuclear energy is a possible threat to the genetic balance of future generations, you - our Government - can only find favour with all Australians should you promote an energy program which is not only infinite in supply but also totally ‘clean’.

By doing this, Australia would have a chance of becoming the centre of the New World, because current research at Australian Universities clearly states that an industrial solar energy source in Australia could supply not only local needs, but also those of South East Asia and the western Statesof America.

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

Petition received.

Whales

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 whale is an endangered species and should be protected by international agreement.

That whalemeat and all other whale products should be excluded from all Australian manufactured goods.

That no whale products should be imported into Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will form appropriate legislation to protect the whale from commercial exploitation.

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

Petition received.

Pornographic Literature and Films

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 undersigned persons believe that some literature and films being published and shown throughout Australia are detrimental to the wellbeing of the Community.

Your petitioners thereby humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the publication and availability of pornographic and other material of that nature is restricted and that the people are made aware of the dangers to the Community from such literature and films.

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

Petition received.

page 901

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND MINES LIMITED

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Minister will recall writing to me and advising me that the shareholders of Queensland Mines Ltd would be well advised to keep their shares within their possession as those shares in the future would be of great and ever-increasing value to them. My question is: Does the Minister adhere to that written advice at this date? Would he hold it reasonable to tender the same advice to the shareholders of the Australian Gas Light Co. in Sydney?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did give that advice and I would continue to advise them both so to do.

page 901

QUESTION

ELECTORAL LAW

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Will the Prime Minister consider reintroducing last year’s Commonwealth Electoral Bill so that those members who support the principle of one vote one value for the first time, such as the Leader of the Opposition, can vote to have this principle enshrined in our electoral law?

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

– On 2 occasions last year the Government introduced a Bill to enshrine this principle. It was in accordance with the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee in 1958 - the unanimous recommendations of all the members drawn from the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party, and from both Houses. The Bill was twice passed by the House of Representatives and was twice defeated by the Senate. It is for that reason that a referendum is being put to the people on 1 8 May so as to adopt the same method of ensuring equal electorates in Australia in both the Federal and State parliaments as the United States Constitution ensures for the Congress and the State legislatures.

Mr Snedden:

– I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is not entitled to mislead the House. The proposal -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. The Chair is not responsible for the way in which a Minister answers a question. The Chair does not know whether an answer is authentic or not. The fact is that as long as the answer is relevant to the question no point of order is involved.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be requested to resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker, you have not heard my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I heard your point of order in the first place.

Mr Snedden:

– If you have not heard my point of order, how can you rule that there is no point of order involved?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I ask that the Standing Orders be enforced. When you ask the right honourable gentleman to resume his seat he should be required to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. As I have specifically stated on numerous occasions, the Chair is not in a position to know whether an answer given to a question is authentic. The task of the Chair is to interpret Standing Orders. There is no restriction on the way a Minister answers a question as long as the answer is relevant to the question.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable member for Diamond Valley asked me whether I would-

Mr Whittorn:

– Is the Prime Minister taking a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister is finishing his answer to the question. When the Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order the Prime Minister sat down as a gentleman should do when a point of order is taken.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable member for Diamond Valley asked whether the Government would introduce a Bill to enshrine the principle of one vote one value. I pointed out that the Government had twice done so last year; on both occasions the House of Representatives had passed the Bill and on both occasions the Senate had defeated it. I pointed out that the terms of that Bill were identical with the unanimous recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee in 1958. The right honourable gentleman who took a spurious point of order was the AttorneyGeneral during a couple of elections when a referendum, as recommended by the Constitutional Review Committee, could have been put to the people without additional expense or untoward delay. I can understand [he honourable member for Diamond Valley raising this matter, because under the law as it stands his electorate has one of the largest enrolments in Australia - about 85,000. But this is a matter of complaint not only among members of the Government Party. It presumably also would be a matter of complaint among members of the Opposition parties because, for instance, one of them - the honourable member for Mcpherson - represents an electorate of 87,000 electors and another sitting not far from him represents an electorate of 47,000 electors. It is quite clear that the present legislation is defective. Since the Parliament will not cure the position, the public ought to be given the opportunity at a referendum to see that in Australia-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kooyong will remain silent. I indicate to honourable members that I will warn any honourable member who interjects and then ask for his suspension if he again interjects.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is quite clear that the Australian public ought to be given the opportunity of ensuring that the Australian Constitution provides for equal electorates, as does the United States constitution.

Mr Snedden:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister wants a debate about this matter we will give him leave to make a statement on it after question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr Snedden:

– But he should not continue to misrepresent-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no point of order involved. The right honourable gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

page 902

QUESTION

STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAY TO ALICE SPRINGS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. When will construction of the standard gauge railway from South Australia to Alice Springs commence? What is the cause of the continued delay? Is there a dispute between him and Mr Virgo, the Minister for Transport in South Australia? Can the Minister allay fears that the Australian Government is proposing to defer the project for an indefinite period?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for asking that question. For 23 years the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government and could get nowhere on this matter. When I took over as Minister for Transport the whole matter was bogged down. We are now completely in the clear. I am hopeful of a very early announcement on this subject.

page 902

QUESTION

COAL SHORTAGES IN QUEENSLAND

Mr DOYLE:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Labour. Is it true that coal shortages at Ipswich in Queensland are likely to cause power cuts with serious consequences to industry and employment in Queensland? What is the cause of these shortages? Has the

Queensland Government taken action to ration electricity in such a way as to ensure that a wholesale closure of Queensland industry will not occur?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– A number of events have combined to create the coal shortage that is being experienced in the West Moreton - that is, Ipswich - area to which the honourable gentleman has referred. The area supplies coal to Swanbank power station and to 2 small booster stations which supply power to the whole of southern Queensland. The West Moreton coal fields are the major source of coal production in south eastern Queensland.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is reading, as can be seen, from a letter. I ask that that letter be tabled so that we can see the whole of its contents.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the Minister classifies it as being a letter containing confidential information he does not have to table it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is a confidential document.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is quite in order in classifying the letter as a confidential document and in not tabling it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is something I learned from the honourable member for Wannon. The majority are underground mines and many of the miners have had family associations in the industry. In July 1972 17 men lost their lives in the Box Flat disaster and the major coal producing tunnels at the Box Flat colliery have never re-opened. The existing mines in the West Moreton area attempted to overcome the production loss due to the closure of Box Flat by increasing their own production. In July 1973 the Queensland Coal Board warned the State Government of Queensland that stocks were dwindling and that the situation could become serious. More recently the Queensland Coal Owners Association blamed the coal shortage on the State Government for not re-opening the Box Flat mine. Following flooding in late January 1974 -

Mr McMahon:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order relates to the statement that the Minister is reading to the House. He said in answer to you, Mr Speaker, that the document he fa reading is confidential.

Yet it must be obvious to you that be is reading from the statement in detail and, therefore, he is either being incautious in his use of phrase or bordering on telling an untruth. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule that the Minister table the document in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Chair has no power to order the Minister to table a document if he says it is classified.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of course, 1 am not reading the confidential parts of the statement.

Mr McMahon:

– Well, let us all look at it and we can see whether you are telling the truth.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The statement is quite in order. I am not (reading the confidential portions of the statement. As I was saying, the Queensland Coal Owners Association blamed the coal shortage on the State Government for not re-opening the Box Flat mine. Following flooding in late January 1974, four West Moreton mines were closed. These were Westfalen, Aberdare No. 8, Haighmoor and Reliance. The State Governnent has indicated that it will assist in opening Westfalen. This is a long term proposal which is estimated to cost approximately Sim but about which the State Government has done no more than to make vague promises. On 22 February the Queensland Coal Employees Union issued a statement indicating that no new mines could be opened or old mines closed without consultation with the union - the implication being that something had to be done about the closed West Moreton mines. The Queensland Secretary of the Miners Federation, Mr Peterson, reportedly said: ‘It would be criminal to allow mines to close just for economic reasons’. A demarcation dispute is now threatening the New Hope colliery. This demarcation dispute would never have arisen had the Australian Government’s legislation introduced last year to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act been passed by the Senate. I will not recount the various other obstacles to the output of coal being returned to normal, unless the House requires me to do so and then I will be glad to do it.

Mr Snedden:

– We will give you leave to make a statement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition will not give me leave to make a statement at all. I will take it now.

Mr Snedden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the Minister for Labour has just said illustrates quite clearly that he is defying your ruling continually, to make-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order on the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to wait until I have heard the point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You know enough to know that it is not a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Snedden:

– The Minister is making his answers long in order to fill in time at question time-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, that is not a point of order, I submit. The Leader of the Opposition ought to be asked to resume his seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! While I have been Speaker of this House I have appealed consistently for questions, prefaces to questions, and answers given by Ministers to be as brief as possible. It is my duty to see that backbenchers are given the opportunity to ask as many questions as possible. I ask the Minister to be as brief as possible in his answer to this question.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker-

Mr Lynch:

– He cannot find his place.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will find out whether I have lost my place. On 18 March 1974 Mr E. D. Murray, the Queensland State Electricity Commissioner, recommended to the State Cabinet that electricity rationing be introduced. This recommendation was rejected by the Cabinet. But Mr Bjelke-Peterson reportedly said that if the situation was not righted he would declare a state of emergency and send in the police.

page 904

QUESTION

PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by saying that the Premier of Queensland is a very experienced pilot who can cope with all circumstances - hijacking or otherwise. Can the Prime Minister say whether he has ever been taken for a ride by the Premier of Queensland?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– My understanding of the Premier is that he is more interested in exploring the waters . under the earth than the heavens above. I am not unaware that one of his complaints - he had it against 2 previous Australian governments, that is, against Prime Minister Gorton and possibly Prime Minister McMahon as well as against Prime Minister Whitlam - is that those successive Australian governments wanted to ensure that the national interest prevailed in the waters under the earth and off the shore even if the Premier was speculating in them to the national disadvantage. I cannot imagine why the right honourable gentleman raises the Premier’s name in this context. It may be that the right honourable gentleman has in mind some quite novel action that the Premier took yesterday, because yesterday morning the Premier orally had the message conveyed to the Australian Government that he had advised the Governor of Queensland to accept the timetable which the Governor-General had proposed 2 or 3 weeks before regarding the Senate elections. Later, of course, the Premier apparently gave different advice to the Governor. This is the first time this has ever happened in the history of our nation. I cannot expose the honourable gentleman at greater length at this stage because, as honourable members will understand, he may be brought to book in the High Court.

page 904

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

[Mr Thorburn having addressed a question to the Minister for Services and Property]-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point of order is upheld. The question has nothing at all to do with the Minister’s portfolio.

page 904

QUESTION

URANIUM: EXPORT CONTRACTS

Mr WHITTORN:

– As the Minister for Minerals and Energy is refusing to approve any new export contracts for uranium, is he expecting the industry to go out of business or is this his method of depressing the shares of the companies involved so that the Government can take over a reduced asset at a very cheap rate - that is, nationalise the industry in total?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member is no.

page 905

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY: MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Transport a question. Has his attention been drawn to suggestions that the Government is considering using its sales tax powers to encourage the production and sale of small motor vehicles at the expense of larger vehicles in order to discourage fuel consumption and pollution? Is he aware that generally small vehicles are far more dangerous when involved in accidents than larger vehicles? Will he assure the House that any decision to use sales tax powers or any other taxing powers to encourage the use of different forms of motor vehicles will be taken only after consideration is first given to the environment of people inside motor vehicles?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

– I have no knowledge of any tax to be imposed to discourage people from using or buying large cars, medium sized cars or small cars. 1 am aware that people who are interested in road safety are concerned about the effects of accidents involving large cars, which are referred to by some people as Yank tanks, and small vehicles. Invariably the smaller vehicle comes off second-best in an accident. As far as pollution is concerned, we know that the large motor car pollutes the atmosphere much more than the small vehicle does. To me this whole question has to be examined on its merits. We have to determine what people want, whether they want large motor cars that are polluting the atmosphere or whether we should use small vehicles. I have been quite clear on this matter. I have clearly indicated that I believe people should be encouraged to use small motor cars and that motor vehicle manufacturers should be required to build into small cars safety features that are necessary to protect the life and welfare of the people who travel in them.

page 905

QUESTION

JOINT AUSTRALIAN-RUSSIAN SCIENTIFIC STATION IN AUSTRALIA

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Government receive a request to establish a joint AustralianRussian scientific base in Australia? If a joint Russian-Australian scientific base were established in Australia would it not represent a threat to the alliance between Australia and the United States and would it be likely to render useless any bases which the United States has in Australia today? Will the Government, without any further ado, reject the Russian request?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– A few weeks ago a party of visiting Russian scientists did raise with their Australian counterparts the proposal to establish a joint Australian-Soviet station. Station is the word; not base. The proposal was that the station would be used for the purposes of photographing space objects and contributing to a study of the characteristics of the atmosphere. The proposal is currently under study in appropriate departments. No policy advice has been given to Ministers and Ministers have not considered the matter collectively, nor individually has any of them formed a concluded view. Obviously the implications for various United States installations in Australia were in mind. One of those installations can properly be described as a base. Some are appropriately described as having defence communications significance and others are properly described as pure scientific stations. Accordingly, the Australian Government informed the United States Government. The Americans know about this because we, the Australians, told them. If there is military significance in any such proposals from the Soviet Union or from anybody else it is most unlikely that the proposals will be accepted. The Australian Government takes the attitude that there should not be foreign military bases, stations, installations in Australia. We honour agreements covering existing stations. We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of those existing ones. The agreements stand, but there will not be extensions or proliferations. Nor in my view or my assessment is there any prospect of installations or stations with military significance being introduced for the first time into Australia by any other nation. And we do our best to see that in the Indian Ocean the present installations and bases are not expanded and that their numbers are not increased.

page 905

QUESTION

CEMENT PRICES

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: Has his attention been drawn to shortages of cement for the building trades? Has he received complaints that while supplies of local cement are in short supply in Queensland, cement from interstate sources is more readily available at higher prices? Is there any evidence that cement is being sold interstate rather than on the local market because of the higher price available, taking into account the additional cost of freight and other factors?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The shortage of cement in Brisbane was first noticed in about the middle of last year. The shortage seemed to coincide with a breakdown at that time of a cement manufacturing plant in Brisbane. There is still a shortage of cement and it is aggravating the reconstruction program following the recent flood. I understand that a considerable amount of cement is obtained from the southern States. The last time I looked at the problem the price of interstate cement, for understandable reasons, was in the vicinity of 17c a bag higher than the local product. I understand that in- a 2-year period to December 1973 the wholesale price of cement increased in the 6 capitals, on average, by 11 per cent, whereas in Brisbane it increased by 17 per cent. The honourable gentleman asked me about collusion. I am not in a position to know whether there is collusion among Queensland manufacturers on the price of cement. However, soon after my appointment to this portfolio I encouraged the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices to conduct an investigation into the prices of building materials. An investigation is currently under way in regard to the various materials used in this industry, including, I hope, cement. The Commissioner of Trade Practices, of course, also has a prerogative in this matter but I am unable to comment on that. It is sufficient to say that there are probably too few cement manufacturers in Australia and it is possible in those circumstances for agreement to be reached on price fixation.

page 906

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to an announcement that superphosphate is now being rationed in Victoria? Is he aware that this action is entirely as a result of the Government’s decision to announce prematurely the cessation of the fertiliser subsidy? Did the Prime Minister say, as reported, that the State governments could, if they so desired, introduce their own superphosphate bounties? Finally, will he reconsider the decision in the light of the case put forward as to the effect this hastily taken decision will have not only on the primary producers but also on the community as a whole, which includes the housewife who will have to pay more for her agriculturally produced foodstuffs?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The decision to allow the Phosphate Fertilisers Bounty Act to expire at the end of 1974 was taken after careful and prolonged consideration. Honourable members will remember that their attention was drawn to the inappropriateness of this particular bounty in the Coombs task force report. I think I can bring home to the honourable gentleman how inappropriate it is for the taxpayer to be paying this form of assistance by recalling that net farm income in 1971-72 was $l,146m, in 1972-73 it was $l,888m, and this year it is estimated to be $2,885m. In other words, it is estimated that this financial year farm income will be $1 billion greater than it was last financial year. In those circumstances it would be quite misplaced to ask the taxpayer to spend $6Sm this financial year and more than $70m next financial year in subsidising superphosphate when the incomes of those who use it are rising so dramatically. So the Government announced the decision a couple of months ago to allow people to plan for their consumption or orders in the future.

It was announced by the Government weeks ago that if any industry or any region believes that it is disadvantaged by the expiry of this Act at the end of 1974 it may make out a case to the appropriate department for a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government also has announced that the resources of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will be available to any industry or region seeking such a reference, and through the BAE the resources of any other Australian Government department will be made available to such industry or region.

The honourable gentleman refers to the position of the States. It seems to have been forgotten that section 91 of the Constitution has always permitted the States to pay such bounties in certain circumstances. I will read the relevant words from section 91 of the Constitution:

Nothing in this Constitution prohibits a State from granting . . . with the consent of both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth expressed by resolution, any aid to or bounty on the production or export of goods.

Accordingly, if the Executive Government of any State, to use the constitutional term, proposes or desires to pay a bounty, say, on phosphate fertilisers, it can ask for the approval of the 2 Federal Houses to such legislation by the State parliament.

I believe it is significant that in all these matters State Premiers are bountiful with their advice but very slow on action. If any State department is willing to help an industry or a region to make out a case to the IAC, why does it not do it? The fact is that none has done so hitherto. The States are as well aware as the Australian Government that no case can be made out for an overall subsidy by the taxpayers in present circumstances, and this case has never been put more eloquently and cogently than by the honourable gentleman’s own Leader who pointed out that one pays unemployment benefit to unemployed persons but one ceases to pay unemployment benefit to them when they cease to be unemployed. I commend to the honourable gentleman the speeches which were made by his present Leader and by his former Leader in support of the irrefutable case for cancelling the superphosphate bounty at a time of rapidly rising rural incomes.

page 907

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Minister for Health aware of the existence of a pamphlet put out by American drug companies, offering 101 per cent marks-ups to buyers of certain drugs if they buy in substantial quantities? Is he aware that this method is being adopted to increase their share of the drug market in Australia at the expense of the local manufacturers? Does he intend to do anything to prevent further erosion of the position of the Australian drug producers which is to the advantage of overseas, foreign drug companies?

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

– I have seen something of that type of advertisement for what is claimed to be the biggest selling nose drops or decongestant drops in Australia. This advertisement is addressed to retail chemists, encouraging them to foster the sale of this particular preparation. I am not aware that the company is foreign owned but, to my knowledge, a very expensive promotion is being put forward by the multi-national firms in contrast to the rather modest promotion programs put forward by smaller Australian firms in the drug industry. I am concerned about this matter. My Department has taken very effective steps to contain the cost to the Australian taxpayer of bulk prescription drugs. When a small Australian producer is offering a competitive tender for listing on the pharmaceutical benefits list the Department can say to the big multi-national firm: ‘We will not list your drug unless you give us a price comparable to that of the Australian producer’. Some firms have been very disturbed about this and have accused the Government of unfair practices, but of course the Government is just following their advice. It is using the principles of free enterprise and free competition to which they were not so exposed under our predecessors who were wont to ring up gentlemen in the Department of Health and say: ‘Please lay off our friends.’

I notice that none of the interjections I hear are coming from former Ministers for Health. The point is that this particular item to which attention has been drawn by the honourable member for Hunter is not of major concern to the taxpayer. The Government does not have control over it because it is not a pharmaceutical benefits listing. There is no doubt that, in many areas of retailing - not only in pharmacy - this sort of high pressure incentive is put on retailers to buy something which will give them a high mark-up and create a consumer demand out of all proportion to the value of the product.

page 907

QUESTION

NATIONAL WAGE CASE

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct this, my first question since last year, to the Minister for Labour. Is the Minister aware that in the national wage case currently being heard, Mr Staples as counsel appearing on his behalf was requested from the Bench to indicate his views - and hence the Minister’s views - on the movement of productivity? Is the Minister aware that his representative simply dismissed the question by saying: ‘Productivity is for people on my left and right to determine’?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister cannot be expected to know the details of the case to which the honourable member has referred. The honourable member is entitled to ask a question in regard to the case but not in relation to its details.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Will the Minister explain why the Government has now concluded that productivity is no longer a matter for its concern in the determination of wages in Australia, while so many regard it as a most vital ingredient in maintaining the living standards of millions of Australian wage and salary earners?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I must confess that I have not read all of the 1,097 pages of transcript so far taken of the case, but I have read most of them. I would have read at least 1,000 pages.

Mr McMahon:

– But you do not understand it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do understand it. I am informed by people in a position to know that I am the only Minister for Labour who has ever understood the situation and I am the only one who has ever bothered even to ask for the transcript. But in answer to the question, let me say to the honourable gentleman that instructions given to counsel representing the Australian Minister for Labour were to the effect that the Government believes that quarterly cost of living adjustments ought to be automatically applied to wages each quarter as was the case right up until 1953 so that we could take from wage disputation the element of price movements, leaving the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to determine only what adjustment should be made to wages to compensate for productivity movements. The Government believes that if there is a reintroduction in wage indexation, so that price movements can be taken care of automatically each quarter as they occur, it will reduce the clement of disputation to matters that relate to movements in productivity, changes .in circumstance and technological change. I believe from the case which has so far been put that that is an argument which would be very hard to resist.

On the question of productivity, perhaps I can tell the House something of the machinery for measuring productivity. In 1954 when the State statisticians were brought under the control of the Commonwealth Statistician, as he was then called, I made a plea to the Government of the day to introduce an index for measuring productivity movements. Nothing has been done since that pica was made except that now the present Government is looking at the question of productivity indexes so that we will be in a position to measure the movement accurately. The Prime Minister has appointed Professor Crisp to conduct an inquiry in depth into the whole question of the indexation of productivity movements and other related matters. We want to have some means of measuring productivity so that there cannot be the disputation between the parties before the Commission that we have seen and are seeing still in the present national wage case. For example, the employers estimate that the movement in productivity is no more than 2.5 per cent. Mr Jolly, for the Australian Council of Trade Unions, asserts that the movement in productivity last year was 3.7 per cent. Professor Neville has given yet a different figure. Others have estimated - it can be no more than a guestimate - that the figure would be as high as 4.2 per cent. We want the Commission to be in a position where it will not have to listen to arguments or differing points of view as to what the figure is. The Commonwealth Statistician will be able to tell the Commission the precise figures in relation to productivity in the same way as the Commonwealth Statistician can now precisely state what the movement in the consumer price index is. If that has helped the honourable gentleman, 1 am very pleased.

page 908

HANSARD TAPES

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish to make some remarks about Hansard tapes. As honourable members are aware, the Hansard Department makes a complete tape recording of the proceedings of the House. The tapes are of the long playing kind and a spool is sufficient to cover the duration of a morning sitting, or an afternoon sitting, or an evening sitting. lt is not possible to make a complete recording if members ask the Principal Parliamentary Reporter to allow them to hear a replay of proceedings that occurred a few minutes earlier. The recorder has to be stopped, the spool removed, another spool put in its place and the replacement tape wound into position before recording can be resumed. In that interval, some of the debate is lost; and the position is aggravated when several requests to replay a tape are made in any one period. Members have access to the tapes as a privilege granted by Mr Speaker. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter is authorised to arrange for members to hear a replay during meal breaks and after the House adjourns at night.

page 908

QUESTION

LEAVE TO MAKE STATEMENT NOT GRANTED

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– Mr Speaker, I ask for leave of the House to make a statement about the death of President Pompidou of France.

Mr Whitlam:

– The normal etiquette would have been to confer beforehand.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– No. If the right honourable gentleman thinks it appropriate we will do it tomorrow. We will both do it.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 909

HANSARD TAPES

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not intend to do that because I think that the privilege allowed by myself far exceeds that allowed in the Senate, where there is no access to tapes allowed by the President of the Senate. I do not intend to go so far as to allow for an extra tape facility to be made available. I submit that it is quite in order for honourable members to wait until the meal break or until after the House rises before they listen to the tapes. It is not my intention to alter that procedure.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, may I with your indulgence press the point made by my colleague from Gippsland. It is important for members to have tapes–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I have specifically stated that the access to tapes is a privilege granted by the Speaker. It is not enjoyed in the Senate. I intend to continue this practice in the House of Representatives, but reports that I have from Hansard indicate that a replay of proceedings that occurred a few minutes earlier places Hansard at a great disadvantage. I intend to continue with the present procedures.

Mr MacKellar:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the taping of the proceedings of the House. There is a danger of recording machines breaking down and if the one machine did break down - this has happened in the past - then the proceedings of the House would not be recorded. For this reason, I believe there should be 2 recordings.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not intend to order the purchase of an extra machine. As I said, the privilege granted by the House of Representatives far exceeds that of the Senate. I do not intend to withdraw that privilege, which I could withdraw if I wanted to.

page 909

REVISED VISITOR VISA SYSTEM

Ministerial Statement

Mr GRASSBY (Riverina - Minister for

Immigration) - by leave - On 1 September 1973 a revised system for the issue of tourist visas was introduced. Under the new simplified procedure a person who intends to visit Australia as a tourist is issued with a visa upon completing a much simpler application form than previously, accompanied by, firstly, evidence of having paid for a return ticket to Australia or an onward ticket from Australia; secondly, a valid passport; and, thirdly, a declaration that he has sufficient funds to support a stay in Australia of the duration requested.

In announcing the relaxed procedures I made it perfectly clear that tourists could not or would not be permitted to engage in employment and that applications for permission to remain in Australia would not be accepted from persons who entered on tourist visas. Furthermore I indicated that enforcement action for departure would be taken against any tourist taking up employment or remaining in Australia after expiration of his temporary entry permit. I also indicated that the operation of the scheme would be reviewed at the end of 12 months. If it was then found that the relaxed rules were being abused to any great extent I said I would take whatever corrective action was necessary.

The declaration embodied in the application form which is in the language of the visitor applicant and which each visitor applicant is required to sign reads as follows:

I am not suffering from any dangerous contagious disease such as tuberculosis nor have I suffered any mental illness.

I do not have a criminal record.

I have sufficient funds to support my stay in Australia for the period of the visit.

I do not intend to settle in Australia.

The particulars provided by me in this application are true in every detail.

Also included with the information notes on the application form which each visitor applicant receives is the following:

People who travel to Australia as visitors will not normally be permitted to remain for other purposes such as employment, studies or settlement.

In addition each recipient of a visitor visa is given in his language a ‘Notice To Visitors To Australia’, the text of which reads:

Persons who enter Australia as visitors will be expected to leave when the period of their visit has expired. They may not engage in employment or undertake full time courses of study while in Australia. Applications for permission to remain in Australia will not be accepted.

In summary the essential differences between the system which applied prior to 1 September 1973 and since that date are that a simpler application form has been introduced; that time consuming interviews to establish bona fides have been replaced in favour of self categorisation by applicants; that strict rules against changes of status in Australia following arrival on visit visas were introduced; and that visits for family reasons are being facilitated. It will be seen therefore that the simplified visitor visa system was designed, with inbuilt safeguards, to facilitate short term visits and that it was made clear at the outset that such visas were not interchangeable.

Before the system was introduced consideration was given within the Department and with other relevant departments of state to the details. It was considered important to retain a basic control and basic checking of people coming to Australia, particularly in view of the increased mobility of criminals and terrorists. There had been considerable pressure for the abolition of all visas for short term visits. Support for this, over a period of years, has come from such responsible bodies as the Australian Tourist Commission, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents and the Pacific Basin Economic Council, representing senior executives of Australia, Japan, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, as well as State Tourist Ministers. More recently the report of the Coombs task force to the Australian Government suggested the following possibility:

Abolish visa requirements for visits of 3 months or less from Australia’s 3 major sources of international visas, as a test program. Substitute in their place a requirement that the visitor submit to the nearest Australian embassy or consulate a form to be made available at travel bureaux and booking offices which requires details of intended address in Australia and photostat evidence that a return ticket has been purchased. The consulate or embassy could make further contact with the applicant only if his visit required further checks. The visitor would not be able to alter his status whilst in Australia.

After mature consideration by all concerned, I took the view that it would not be in the best interests of Australia for all controls to be abandoned in this way.

Before the new system was introduced, it was discussed in depth with Ministers in Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan and the High Commis sioner of Fiji. I later arranged for on the spot discussions in Thailand. The purpose of the discussions was to seek the comments of our neighbours particularly on the operation of such a new streamlined system. They were unanimous in welcoming the reform. The Foreign Minister of Indonesia went further in suggesting that 7-day visits be permitted without any visa at all. I discussed this, as I promised him I would do, with all the other ASEAN countries and the reaction was in favour of the 3 months visitor visa under the new system which I proposed.

Because there has been some abuse of the system in a limited number of locations, I ordered a review after 6 months. The review carried out by the Department of Immigration indicates that the number of visitor visas issued at Australian posts abroad under the new system totaled 94,492 in the period 1 September 1973 to 28 February 1974. This represents an increase of 8,767 over the corresponding period in 1972-73. The notable increases in visas issued, as compared with the same period 12 months earlier, were:

The situation in regard to Fiji was that the numbers increased from 1,868 to 5,270 and information becoming available indicated that there were deliberate abuses being planned. As honourable members will know, in relation to Colombia, the Colombian authorities provided information that 3 travel agencies were engaged in dishonest practices in connection with these visas and in 2 further instances a major international airline was used as a cover for such practices. As a consequence of these abuses, the easy visa system was suspended in Colombia and in Fiji. The 6 months review indicates that at 31 December 1973, the latest date to which statistical information is available from the computerised records maintained by my Department, 1,270 persons were overstayed visitors. This figure, however, includes a number who would have since departed or received extensions of stay and others who would have applied for extension of stay. My Department has estimated that 1,000 may be a reasonable maximum figure of ‘overstayers’ as at 31 December 1973. Pending a further overall review system at the end of May 1974, I have decided that the ‘easy visa’ system will continue to apply for most countries in the world. It has not applied at any time to countries of special significance so far as terrorist activities are concerned. In relation to Colombians the estimate is that the number of illegal residents is now only 124. I hope the clean-up of this group will lead to its restoration in respect of Colombia.

The Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, has warmly welcomed the easy visa system and has made it plain neither he, his Government nor his people of Fiji condone any law breaking in Australia of Australia’s laws; indeed he has pleaded for the restoration of the system. I share his desire to see the system re-instated and, after the current abuses have been eradicated, I will be happy to consider this. In the meantime, at the request of the Fijian Government through its High Commissioner in Australia, I have agreed to accord the High Commissioner every opportunity to persuade Fijian visitors contravening the conditions of their entry to leave Australia voluntarily without the ultimate act of deportation being taken. From time to time in further specific instances extra vigilance will be needed by my officers on the spot where abuses arise.

In the countries where the system is suspended visitor visas will be restricted to applicants who are joining close relatives permanently resident in Australia, bona fide business visitors and any other cases where the issuing officer is satisfied that a genuine visit is contemplated. Every country which is attractive as a place to live and work inevitably experience illegal entry from less affluent countries. Australia has been no exception, either under the previous Government or the present, but Australia has controlled the extent of illegal entry far more successfully than other countries in comparable circumstances.

We must continue to have effective control, combined with visa procedures which do not put genuine visitors to such excessive inconvenience as to obstruct desirable tourism and cultural exchange. At the same time, abuses must be corrected as they become known. The major problem of illegal residents in Australia continues to stem from the policies and practices of the previous Government. This Administration inherited 18,000 illegal residents. By inaction in relation to this problem, racketeers were encouraged to flourish, and cases of exploitation have continued in a number of areas as a result. This Administration is continuing efforts to regularise the position of those people, guided by humanity and compassion. These must remain the foundations of Australia’s visitor policy. Accordingly, the easy visa system will continue in the great majority of countries, to the benefit of all concerned but with vigilance for and positive action against abuses. I present the following paper:

Revised Visitor Visa System- Ministerial Statement, 3 April 1974

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) has made a number of statements both in this Parliament and outside it. They have all been made because the Minister introduced what has been called an easy visa system. We have seen quite plainly that actions of the Minister for Immigration and actions of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) have aroused in a number of countries expectations which it is most unlikely will be fulfilled. In one country, 10,000 people were reported to have approached the Australian embassy, seeking access to the Australian embassy to inquire as to the possibility of visiting or entering Australia. Honourable members are aware that hundreds of applications a day have been made in the Philippines as a result of the visits made there by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration.

In his speech the Minister for Immigration read out from a table figures indicating increased numbers of people who have come to Australia from other countries. I might add that it would appear that that table could be a selective one. I ask the Minister to make available a much larger and more significant table involving a number of other countries and providing the same information for all countries to which the easy visa system applies. I also remind the Minister that there are a number of questions on the notice paper which he might do well to look at and answer.

Mr Grassby:

– They were put on the notice paper yesterday.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– They appeared on the notice paper yesterday because when they were asked in the Parliament and the Minister had an opportunity to answer them he deliberately ignored them. That did not happen yesterday but several days ago. If the Minister has forgotten when there was a debate in the Parliament on those matters concerned with immigration his memory is even more defective than I would have believed it to be. The Minister has aroused unfulfilled expectations. He has undertaken actions which over the next few months will, I think, gravely damage Australia’s reputation in Asia and in neighbouring countries. It would have been far better if the Minister had been content to be a more silent Minister of Immigration and not arouse expectations which he, or the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) at any rate, certainly would not want to see fulfilled and would not be able to fulfil without introducing changes which I doubt that the Leader of the House would be willing to see introduced.

One of the significant things which has flown from this statement of the Minister is that the Minister quite plainly has lost control of the present situation. He said there must be control. In his statement he said that there must be necessary safeguards. However, as a result of the easy visa system itself, we have seen a situation in which there are significant arguments between Australia and other countries - a situation in which members of Parliament from other countries are challenging the Australian Minister to repeat outside this Parliament what he has said within it. A copy of the challenge is contained in a telegram which has been sent to me. I seek leave to have that telegram incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Grassby:

– This is a telegram to Mr Malcolm Fraser from Mr Tora in Fiji. I have no objection to. its incorporation in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Using parliamentary privilege Immigration Minister Grassy recently made serious unfounded and insulting allegations against me in Federal Parliament Canberra on question of twelve Fijians recently deported from Australia and matters related thereto. If Minister Grassby is not prepared to make same allegations in places where he can be sued for damages or accept my repeated challenge for a public debate on the issue request if minister could be asked to be man enough to withdraw accusations and apologise. . . Apisai Tora Shadow Minister Labour and Immigration, Fiji

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I thank the Minister and the House. A strange situation has developed as a direct result of the Minister’s own actions. A member of Parliament in another country and the Australian Minister have been engaged in abuse across the seas. Clearly this is a situation which will not do Australia’s general relationships with that country any good. Our Minister must carry the responsibility for this situation. We have been given more information on this occasion about the easy visa system than we have been given on previous occasions in spite of the fact that questions have been asked about the easy visa system. One of the things that shines through the Minister’s statement is what the Minister calls time consuming interviews to establish bona fides have been replaced in favour of self-categorisation by applicants, lt does not matter from where people come, the Minister is happy to have their own word for it no matter what. That is what self-categorisation means. Surely what has happened so far indicates that selfcategorisation alone is not an adequate safeguard for those matters which the Minister has said he wishes to safeguard. In his statement the Minister said he considered it was important to retain a basic control and basic checking of people coming to Australia, particularly in view of the increased mobility of criminals and terrorists, but, at the same time, the Minister has introduced a system which allows self-categorisation. That being so, surely it indicates there is no control at all.

In the last few days, as a result of this system, we have seen unhappy reports of deportations by the Minister’s Department leading again to adverse publicity between Australia and other countries. The deportations would not have been necessary if the system had not been introduced or if it had been introduced in a way which had not allowed for the abuses which have occurred. This again is something for which the Minister himself must be held responsible. In this statement the Minister is trying to indicate that he is taking a firm line and that he is going to preserve the purposes of the program for which he is responsible, but in doing this he cannot get away from the fact that the necessary checks and the necessary balances in the administration of the program have plainly been broken down. It is not only in this area but, I have been informed, in other areas also that the Minister has been inclined to make statements announcing policies and immigration officers overseas have not known anything about them. I am told that in relation to the policies which enable an Australian who has been overseas for 3 years or more to regain an assisted passage home, a number of overseas posts had no knowledge of that policy when it was announced. People who applied for such assisted passages were told: ‘We know nothing of this. Something might occur in 6 months or 9 months’. Again the Minister would do well to look more closely to the administration of his Department and pay less attention to the quite avid way in which he seeks publicity for his own activities. Publicity for himself does not indicate good administration, nor does it indicate good policy.

There are a number of areas in which the Minister’s future performance will need to be watched. It would be far better if the Minister took the advice of his Department on a number of these matters. I understand it is now the advice of his Department that Australia’s reputation will be lowered throughout Asia and in other countries as a direct consequence of the Minister’s own decisions and actions in these matters. This is a sad thing for Australia. 1 do not believe that the Minister has been candid with countries in South East Asia. I am certain that he has not been candid with Australians. That is not only my judgment; it is the judgment of Professor Macmahon Ball who wrote a thoughtful article on this subject in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of some days ago. The Minister will not cover his lack of candour by a volume of words and a volume of publicity. His lack of candour, possible deception of people overseas and possible deception of Australians will only become more evident the longer he remains in his office.

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes, in the remarks of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) concerning Mr Tora. The honourable member said that I had abused Mr Tora. I did not abuse Mr Tora personally. I rebutted his insults to Australia and its policies when he raised them in Fiji. In fact the criticisms of

Mr Tora were made by his own fellow countrymen whom he brought here.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I do. On an earlier occasion the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) made a ministerial statement in this Parliament. Only one person was mentioned in that statement - the same person about whom we have been speaking. It was the Minister who referred to unscrupulous people interested in a modern form of blackbirding. He referred to the exploiters who had masterminded illegal entry. It was pretty plain that the words he was using were referring to the Fijian member of Parliament concerned.

Mr Grassby:

– That is a matter of opinion.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Well, the implication was there and on a television program the same day as that debate the Minister said that he did not retract at all from the criticism of Mr Tora.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– There is no field within which there is a greater necessity for an explanation of where this country is heading more than immigration. Up to the present we have had little explanation and there is considerable confusion abroad - confusion best illustrated perhaps by the situation with which Mr Tora is concerned. There is confusion as to just what is meant by Australia’s current immigration policy and whether there is still an opportunity for persons in Asia to come to Australia and on what terms and conditions. There is confusion as to whether there is an opportunity for people, whatever their ethnic origin, to come to Australia and in what numbers. There is even confusion as to the basis on which there is opportunity for Europeans to become migrants to Australia. For example, the application of the easy visa system, as referred to in the statement of the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), suggests that a visitor will not be able to alter his status while in Australia. Surely it is ridiculous that somebody who has come to Australia, who has the necessary qualifications to be a migrant, should not be given the opportunity, if he wishes, to change his status, after suitable inquiry into his background and suitability without having to return to his homeland and make another application.

The first thing I want to say about present immigration policy is that it is regrettable that the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) suffers from verbal diarrhoea. He is a magnificent public relations man. In propagating himself he achieves admirably. In confusing the understanding of the Australian electorate and people abroad on the Australian immigration policy he performs equally admirably. There is complete confusion as to what the current Australian migration policy might be. There is complete confusion abroad and domestically.

The second thing I want to say about the easy visa system is that tragically it is extraordinarily subject to abuse. Only last week or perhaps the week before there were reports in the Australian Press about a number of supposed terrorists - perhaps of Arabic or some other ethnic origin - operating somewhere on the Great Barrier Reef. The terrorists supposedly entered Australia under the easy visa system. I do not know exactly what the circumstances are, whether they exist or not, but I do know that in the courts in New South Wales there is an alarming increase in the number of persons who are being subjected to criminal charges and who are in Australia as a result of visas granted to them under the easy visa system.

Mr Grassby:

– Can you prove that?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am told that there are at least 2 persons at the moment who are on murder charges. I am told that there are a number of other people who have come into this country on visas on a short term basis and who are at the moment charged with various criminal offences. The point is that the Minister in the field of migration has alleged that earlier administrations permitted people to come into Australia who have had backgrounds of a criminal character and who were undesirable migrants. I am sure that neither he nor this Government, any more than any of his predecessors or a government representing the parties on this side of the House, would want persons of that character to enter Australia. My concern is that the easy visa system is capable of abuse in the nature of the questions asked and the manner by which people are permitted to come into Australia. I acknowledge full well that it is neces sary for tourist encouragement and for ease of administration to permit people to come into this country readily. But I still think it is necessary that we recognise that there needs to be some way by which people can adequately be examined in order to determine their background. The application form to which the Minister has referred contains a series of questions. Frankly I do not believe that anyone in his right mind would expect a criminal to acknowledge on a form that asks him whether he has a criminal record the fact that he has such a record. It is not real life. I believe it is necessary to have some other form of inquiry pursued, and in a moment I will suggest an alternative way by which the easy visa system might be policed.

I am concerned about abuses to which the system seems to be subject. The Minister by way of interjection a moment ago suggested that I should produce evidence. I suggest that if he is concerned he might have a word with the New South Wales Commissioner of Police because these records have in fact come from the Police department. Unfortunately it seems that there are a number of persons who have come into Australia who are equally undesirable, I am sure, to the Minister’s Government as they would be to people on this side of the House. I am not concerned with individual people because I am not in a position to pursue my charges other than to say that I am worried that people who have such a background have come before the courts. I suggest that there is a need for a more adequate scrutiny of the background of people who are being admitted into this country than is permitted under this visa system.

The third field that I want to refer to briefly is the general field of invasion of privacy. I am horrified that this Minister has pursued the same course as his colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) pursued earlier in the early stages of the administration of the Government in invasion of the privacy of people in this country. No one in this country believes, I would hope, that a police state or the general concepts of a police state should be applied in the administration of the law. As I understand the circumstances of the expulsion of a number of Fijians who were here apparently in abuse of the easy visa system, the individuals concerned were apparently in residence in a capital city of Australia. Their homes were entered in the early hours of the morning. There was a complete breach of what we in Australia traditionally regard as the privacy and responsibility of a person within his own home. Sure, warrants were issued for entry into houses and sure it was all done in accordance with legal practice. But I do not believe it is necessary that people should have their privacy invaded in this way. I do not believe that invading persons’ homes in the early hours of the morning is a necessary way by which migrants, illegal or legal, should be approached. There are in this country many people who have come here to escape all the abuses of communism and all the abuses of some of the dictator states around the world.

Mr Grassby:

– Are you referring to the Fijians?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am not suggesting that that applies as far as the Fijians are concerned nor did my words convey that meaning. I said that in this country there are many migrants who came from coutnries which are communist controlled and those from Fiji obviously- even the Minister might know this - do not. Fiji has an admirable democratic government. It is a fellow member of the Commonwealth of nations. It is a government for which governments composed of parties on this side of the House have had profound respect. It is regrettable that the Minister and some of his colleagues have not the same respect, as I understand it from some of their public statements, about members of the Government in that country. My point is that many migrants in Australia have come from communist countries. I regard any invasion of privacy in the manner that pertains to the administration of justice in some communist countries as completely abhorrent to the Australian way of life. I believe that neither the Minister for Immigration nor the AttorneyGeneral should continue such pursuits in their vendetta against those who they say are breaching Australian laws.

The fourth thing I wanted to say is that it is necessary that there should be an exposition and a valid exposition, abroad and internally, of the way in which the easy visa system applies and the implications for migrants. I am delighted that the Minister has at last made some statement in this area. There is a great deal of confusion on the basis by which people can migrate to Australia if they come here under the easy visa system. I have already commented that it is unfortunate that the Minister’s practice is that there can be no change in status if a person is admitted to Australia under the easy visa system. Surely this is one of those areas of bureaucratic non-necessity. In other words, surely it must be easier for a person who wishes to stay here permanently to have his application processed while he is staying in Australia than for him to be required to return to his country of origin so that he can apply to become a migrant and then come out to Australia again. The whole process just reeks of bureaucratic bungling. I believe it is essential to have some way by which a person who seeks to remain in Australia as a permanent migrant can be permitted to do so without first being required to return to his country.

As the fifth point, I believe that alternatives are necessary with the easy visa system. I have already commented that I do not see that asking a series of questions of migrants, or of any individual, will necessarily ensure that one gets the correct answers. A system seems to be operating relatively successfully in the Department of Customs and Excise under which officials actually put questions to the persons concerned. I suggest that perhaps that might well be a far better basis, if easy visas are to be maintained, for these questions to be put. I know that it would entail greater administrative work by the staff of our overseas posts. But I am apprehensive of the degree to which the present system leaves itself open to abuse. I think that personal inquiry of an intending visa applicant would be preferable to having that person fill in a form, even in the language of the visitor applicant. I think it would be far better to inquire of each intending applicant to ensure reasonable satisfaction that the questions have been answered accurately and correctly. That does not mean that it is necessary for every question to be put. Surely the same process could be followed as that which applies in the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise regime, which I understand has operated fairly effectively. I believe that additional safeguard would be worth the Minister’s consideration.

Finally, I believe that at this stage there is a real necessity for Australia to embark on a concerted immigration program. I regret the quota restraints that are being applied in relation to the present number of persons coming to Australia as intending permanent migrants. While the Minister’s statement applies particularly to visitor visa entry, I think that our concern in this Parliament shouldbe not only for those who are visitors to Australia but also for those who are going to become future citizens of this country. I hope that a reassessment is made of the quantum of persons to come into Australia. I think that given the labour shortages, particularly in key areas, there is a need for us to return to the fairly extensive system which applied a few years ago when migrants were encouraged to enter Australia from many countries in Europe - persons who I believe have given a great deal towards establishing the Australian idiom in its present form.

I regret that this year there has been a continued curtailment in the quantum of migrants. I believe that it is again time for us to increase significantly the intake of migrants so that Australia can again get about the business of developing a European character, of growing in a total sense and of bringing to this country those people who are prepared to work and who might be prepared to get the country moving forward again instead of, regrettably, moving backwards as the comprehensive policies of this Government tend to lead us to do. I am delighted that the Minister for Immigration has seen fit to make this statement. I regret the abuses that have occurred in the administration of easy visas. I trust that some modification can be made in the practice of the system and that as a result in future abuses might be minimised.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keogh) adjourned.

page 916

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

(3.48)-

I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill has 3 main purposes, each of them quite different. One purpose is to close off avenues for avoidance of withholding tax on interest on foreign loans. Another is concerned with the liability to tax of allowances and benefits received by members of the defence force under the new pay code. The third is related to deductions for contributions for retirement benefits by members of this Parliament and servicemen.

I announced on 2 July 1973 that the Government had decided to introduce amendments to the income tax law to correct an apparent deficiency in the interest withholding tax provisions. The broad effect of these provisions is to impose a moderate withholding tax of 10 per cent on interest paid to overseas lenders by Australian residents or by non-residents who use overseas borrowings in an Australian business. There are some exemptions from the tax, one relevant to this Bill being for interest on money borrowed for use in a business that is Australian owned and controlled to the extent specified in the law.

Another exemption relevant to the Bill frees from withholding tax interest on foreign loans that are used overseas by Australian enterprises in conducting a business through a foreign branch. Some financial institutions with foreign branches have sought to use this latter provision to obtain exemption from withholding tax in respect of loans raised through the branches for use by any Australian clients at all, that is, not only those that are Australian owned and controlled to the required extent. Not only could the loss of revenue from leaving the law as it stands be significant. That course could also lead to a complete frustration of the fundamental policy of the withholding tax that interest paid from Australia by firms that are not sufficiently Australian owned is to bear Australian tax. The Government therefore considers that the changes provided in this Bill must be made.

The primary effect of the Bill is that withholding tax will be payable on interest paid from Australia to a foreign branch of an Australian institution where the institution concerned chooses to arrange its foreign borrowing transactions in such a way that the interest it receives from on-lending the borrowed funds in Australia is derived as income of a foreign branch. The Bill will make the interest subject to withholding tax in such circumstances only where it would have been subject to the tax if it had been received by a non-resident. As I announced on 2 July 1973, the amendments will apply to interest payments made after that day.

Complementary amendments of a technical kind are proposed to clarify the circumstances in which interest paid to non-residents can be said to be incurred in carrying on an overseas business, and thus not subject to withholding tax. As explained more fully in the explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members, a related series of technical amendments is also proposed to forestall tax avoidance in two other areas of the law which are modelled on the interest withholding tax provisions. One of these relates to the source of royalties paid to non-residents, and the other to the source - for the purpose of provisions designed to close down Norfolk Island as a tax haven - of both interest and royalties.

I should mention that none of the withholding tax amendments will affect the exemption for interest on ordinary savings bank or fixed deposit accounts kept by non-residents at overseas branches of Australian banks. The amendments relating to defence force allowances are in the main the result of changes in the service pay structure based on recommendations in the final report of the Committee of Inquiry Into Services’ Pay - the Woodward Committee.

One change of particular significance from the tax standpoint is the withdrawal of the general entitlement of members of the defence force to receive free rations and quarters when living in service establishments, or substituted benefits in the form of cash allowances when living elsewhere. This development, together with a proposal to provide a specific exemption for the value of rations and quarters that are still provided free of charge in a limited range of circumstances, has made unnecessary a provision that fixes the taxable value of defence force allowances in the food and shelter category at $2 a week. Accordingly, the Bill proposes that this provision be repealed.

Another provision of the income tax law governing the exemption of dependants’ allowances and exchange allowances of defence force members is to be amended. One purpose of this is to ensure that, in the limited range of circumstances in which board and quarters are still available free of charge, their value will be exempt from tax. Another purpose is to facilitate the provision, or continuation, of exemptions for allowances paid in reimbursement of certain abnormal expenses incurred by defence force personnel in. complying with duty requirements. The Woodward Committee contemplated that these allowances would not bear tax. The amendments proposed will permit the allowances that are to be paid free of tax to be prescribed by regulations made under the income tax law. In the same way, it is proposed to prescribe, pursuant to this amendment, that a re-engagement bounty payable to a member of the defence force is to be exempt from tax.

The Bill will also remove references in the exempting provisions to service ‘exchange’ allowances. These allowances have long since ceased to be paid. None of the amendments will affect the tax treatment of allowances payable in respect of service before the date of commencement of the new pay code.

The last matter dealt with in the Bill is the allowance of income tax deductions for contributions to superannuation funds. Under recent legislative changes, contributions for retirement benefits by members of this Parliament and by members of the defence force are paid directly into Consolidated Revenue. The amendment proposed by the Bill will ensure that tax deductions for these contributions continue to be available, notwithstanding that they are not paid directly into separate superannuation funds. More detailed explanations of the proposed amendments are set out in an explanatory memorandum circulated in my name for the information of honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 917

INCOME TAX (DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST WITHHOLDING TAX) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, which is complementary to the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974, is of purely technical import. It will repeal existing legislation that declares the rates of withholding tax on dividends and interest paid to non-residents, and will re-declare those rates. The Bill is necessary only because the existing legislation has a title consistent with the present scope of the withholding tax as a levy exclusively on income of non-residents. As I have explained, the Bill I have just introduced has the effect that, under the sort of arrangement I described in my earlier speech, interest withholding tax can be payable on interest paid to a resident. This Bill will ensure that the rates legislation is expressed iti a manner consistent with that position. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 918

FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill replaces the Financial Corporations Bill I introduced into the House on 11 December 1973 and it incorporates a substantial number of amendments. In my second reading speech last December I said that the Government would not seek the passage of the Bill during the then current sittings. The Government recognised that the legislation would affect a wide range of institutions in the non-bank financial sector and that it would be proper that those who have interests involved should have adequate time to examine the provisions of the Bill and to put forward comments.

Many organisations made submissions on the Bill and my officers and I have had useful and wide ranging discussions with a number of individuals and organisations, including the Australian Finance Conference, the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, the Council of Authorised Money Market Dealers, the Accepting Houses Association and the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues. The amendments to the earlier Bill emanate from the Government’s consideration of the views expressed by these various groups in submissions and discussions. I believe that the introduction of a new Bill, rather than the moving of amendments to the old Bill, will facilitate consideration of the Bill during the debate and by the public. There are several important new provisions but there is also a relatively large number of minor amendments to the original Bill that are of a technical nature. This is indicated in the statement that, for information purposes, I have circulated to honourable members showing the differences between the 2 Bills and the reasons for the changes. The amendments contained in the new Bill do not change the basic objectives of the Bill. However, I believe they would be regarded by those possibly affected by the Bill as changes of significant importance. They indicate a willingness by the Government to consider and adopt responsible proposals where it is practicable and desirable to do so.

Honourable members will recall from my second reading speech on 11 December that the purpose of the Bill is to provide the basis for the examination and, as necessary, regulation of activities in the non-bank financial sector in the interests of effective management of the economy for the greatest advantage of the people of Australia. Briefly stated, the Bill requires a wide range of financial corporations whose assets exceed $lm to register at the Reserve Bank and to provide certain information about their activities to assist in allocation of the corporations to appropriate categories. The corporations would then be required to provide statistical information and those whose assets exceed $5m would be subject to any economic management controls on asset ratios, lending and interest rates applicable to their particular category that might be introduced by subsequent regulations. Any determinations under such regulations would be made by the Reserve Bank with the Treasurer’s approval. The amounts to which I have referred may be changed by regulation.

Before turning to the more important of the amendments, I should inform honourable members that the Government has decided not to include in the present Bill provisions relating to the question of foreign ownership and control of non-bank financial institutions. I mentioned in my second reading speech on the earlier Bill that it had not been possible at that time to finalise the provisions to be included in this complex and difficult area, and I went on to outline the Government’s general approach on this question. It has now been decided that it would be more appropriate if these foreign control provisions were contained in separate legislation. In the meantime the Reserve Bank is continuing to administer exchange control in accordance with the policy which I set out in my earlier speech.

With regard to the amendments, it is clear that several organisations representing finance groups place great store on provisions allowing for consultation. Provision has therefore been made in clause 30 for the Treasurer to appoint a committee or committees of persons to advise him on matters to be included in regulations to be made under the legislation and on the operation of the legislation.

In addition, clause 31 provides for the Reserve Bank to consult with associations or other bodies representing registered corporations to keep itself informed of their views in relation to the exercise by the Bank of its powers under the legislation and of trends in activities of their members. The Government attaches considerable importance to voluntary co-operation and consultation in economic management, and considers that the provisions for consultation with representatives of the non-bank finance sector will assist in obtaining voluntary co-operation from the institutions concerned. Such consultations will also provide a means by which representatives of the various industry groups will be able to express their views on proposed regulations and on how the legislation is operating generally.

I emphasise here that the Government proposes to consult appropriate advisory committees before making regulations to give effect to the control powers. In addition there will, of course, be the normal opportunity for Parliament to review regulations made under the legislation. I well understand the concern that has been expressed about the use which could be made of the wide powers proposed to be taken in the Bill but I suggest that it is most important to appreciate that the exercise of such powers will be given effect only by bringing down regulations in the manner I have described. Such regulations will, of course, impose limits on the extent to which the control powers will be subject to administrative discretion.

Mr Garland:

– May I ask whether you consider the regulations to be absolutely inevitable?

Mir CREAN - Yes, I do. I refer in this context to suggestions that all control determinations made under regulations should instead themselves be implemented by regulations so as to permit parliamentary review and that, while such regulations might come into force immediately, they should lapse after a specified period unless debated and affirmed by both Houses of Parliament There is, of course, already opportunity for parliamentary and public debate of changes in monetary policy. At the same time, such changes are essentially a matter for which the Government is responsible and equipped to deal, and do not seem to be readily susceptible to detailed examination and review by Parliament. Indeed a review procedure conducted in the context that a determination would not finally be effective until passed by Parliament would increase uncer tainty in the money and capital markets and could give rise to substantial problems if disallowed.

I would also draw honourable members’ attention in this context to a new provision which has been made in clause 18 for the Treasurer, after consulting the Reserve Bank, to exempt a corporation from the application of any control determination if he considers that the public interest and the existence of special circumstances justify his so doing. An exemption under this clause may be subject to conditions and will be published in the Gazette not later than 90 days after the instrument of exemption is signed by the Treasurer. It is intended that this provision would be used only where unforeseen difficulties arise in the application of a determination and it provides an additional safeguard for corporations that may become subject to controls.

Another amendment relevant to this aspect is the inclusion of a provision in clause 13 (2) requiring the prescription of a minimum period of not less than 30 days for complying with any asset ratio determination fixing an initial or increased ratio. However, it would not, of course, be desirable to stipulate any such minimum period for an interest rate or lending policy determination. I believe that the foregoing amendments which I have outlined should considerably alleviate the worries of those who, notwithstanding the assurances I have given that the legitimate activities of corporations will not be unduly disrupted, have expressed concern at the wide powers given in the Bill. It has not been possible to go any further without a possible substantial reduction in the effective operation of the legislation. For instance, the Government has not been able to accept that ‘lender of last resort’ facilities or guarantees of liquidity should be provided to certain institutions subject to the Bill. The provision of lender of last resort facilities to the banks and authorised money market dealers stems from their special position in the financial sector, including the very detailed legislative or other close supervision by the Australian Government. In the case of most non-bank institutions, such supervision is, of course, carried out by State governments. It is not always appreciated that lender of last resort facilities are not automatically available to the banks as of right; nor that access to such facilities carries with it certain obligations in relation to holdings of government securities and deposits with the Reserve Bank.

I indicated in my earlier second reading speech that it is not the Government’s intention to introduce under this legislation reserve deposit requirements of the type placed on banks.

The Government has also not been able to accept representations that certain groups of financial corporations, such as permanent building societies, should be exempted from the Bill because they are in a special position or because they are largely mutual, non-profit making institutions. The activities of all the financial corporations covered by the Bill are currently or potentially important for economic conditions and therefore for economic policy. The exclusion of any group would materially weaken the proposed legislation and could make the achievement of the broad objectives of the legislation substantially more difficult to achieve. The fact that a group of institutions is non-profit making, or that they are operating in an area of social importance, does not reduce the capacity of those institutions, in certain circumstances, to undertake activities that could be inimical to effective economic management and thereby involve both economic and social costs to the community. Those who have criticised this legislation as having the potential to increase the costs of institutions, and hence of finance provided by such institutions, would do well to reflect on the addition to costs when there is excess lending. To the extent that special features attach to the operation of particular groups of intermediaries, these wil be taken fully into account in the administration of the legislation.

Other amendments in the new Bill include provisions for extensions of time or exemptions to be granted in respect of statistical requirements, and a general prohibition on publication of information relating to the affairs of a particular corporation without its consent. Clause 27 ensures the secrecy of any information provided by corporations, and clause 28 provides a corporation with a defence to prosecution for failing to comply with the legislation if the corporation was not aware of a relevant fact or occurence. Clause 10 has been amended to provide for ‘the Treasurer to review the categorisation of a particular corporation if the corporation requests it and, to require that, in determining in which category a corporation is to be included, the Treasurer is to have regard to certain features of a corporation’s financial structure.

In conclusion, I should again emphasise that the Government is fully aware of the difficulties involved in implementing direct controls over the activities of the non-bank financial sector and of the need to ensure that any controls imposed do not undermine confidence in the institutions concerned or unduly disrupt their legitimate activities. This is reflected, amongst other things, in the consultations that have already taken place with finance groups and the Government’s proposed amendment to formalise such consultations in the future with regard to the formulation of regulations and on the operation of the proposed legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bonnett) adjourned.

page 920

FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ‘BILL 1973

Discharge of Order of the Day

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That the Order of the Day, Government Business, for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Financial Corporations Bill 1973 be discharged.

In moving the withdrawal of the Financial Corporations Bill - that is the earlier Bill that has now been replaced - which I introduced on 11 December 1973 I have in mind the remarks made in the House on 7 March 1974 by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) and the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) following the motion to resume the proceedings on the Bill. Since the adoption of that motion, the Government has decided on a number of amendments to the 1973 Bill following consideration of various submissions on the Bill from interested persons and organisations. These amendments have been incorporated in the Financial Corporations Bill 1974 that I have just introduced. As I said then, I believe that the introduction of a new Bill rather than the moving of amendments to the old Bill will facilitate fresh consideration of the Bill during the debate and by the public.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 920

NORTHERN TERRITORY (STABILIZATION OF LAND PRICES) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

In introducing this new legislation affecting land prices in the vicinity of declared growth centres in the Northern Territory, the Government is seeking to provide some form of control over land prices as a part of an overall planned program of rational urban development which has particular application to Darwin. Speculative increases in land prices on the outskirts of Darwin have been evident in recent years and in the process of expansion of urban leasehold systems in the Northern Territory where the reserve price system applies, it is essential to remove the speculative content from acquisition costs so that the public can secure land eventually at reasonable prices.

My colleague, the former Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Enderby, outlined in a comprehensive Press statement on 15 February 1973 a co-ordinated program of urban development in the Northern Territory, including the provision of this type of legislation. At that stage, South Australia had the Murray New Town Act of 1972 operating and other States have since considered similar legislation.

Because the provisions of this new legislation, which will apply only to the Northern Territory, modify some of the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act which applies throughout Australia, it is not considered appropriate that the modifications should be brought in by way of a Northern Territory ordinance but rather they should be brought in by way of a Federal Act through this Parliament as companion legislation to the Lands Acquisition Act itself.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority to stabilise the prices of land in the Northern Territory required, or likely to be required, in connection with urban development. This process is regarded as an important aspect of large scale acquisition by Government for urban development and is designed to prevent speculative rises in the market value of land held in private ownership.

The area of greatest interest in the Northern Territory is the general area within a radius of about 60 miles of Darwin in which there is a fairly large number of undeveloped and unused 160 acre and 320 acre freehold blocks granted about 100 years ago when South Australia had control of the Northern Territory. Some of this freehold is still held in the names of the original grantees, some is held in the name of descendants of the original grantees while some have passed, over the years, through the hands of various purchasers at ever increasing prices. In areas surrounding other towns in the Territory the impact will not be so great in that the areas adjacent to those towns are either Crown land or are held under rural leasehold tenure such as pastoral or agricultural leases.

The Bill provides for the declaration initially of an investigation area in which persons authorised by the Minister may carry out investigations on private land to determine its suitability for urban development. The period of investigation may be any time up to a maximum of 2 years. When investigations are complete, the Bill provides that the Minister may declare a development area in which all land may be the subject of acquisition under the Lands Acquisition Act within a specified period not exceeding 10 years. Provision is made for the Registrar-General for the Northern Territory to note on all titles affected, the declaration of a development area. This will have the effect of drawing to the attention of those purchasing land that the land may be acquired by the Government for urban development.

The Bill also contains provisions which restrict development of the land - that is, new buildings or major improvements - except where authorised by the Minister, or any major change in the use of the land from that use applying at the date of declaration of the development area. This is designed to curtail attempts for speculative reasons to improve the land or put it to optimum use because of the declared urban development. In the cases of financial hardship occurring, there is a provision which permits the Minister to take appropriate action for the acquisition of the land under the Lands Acquisition Act.

In any development area where the Government moves to acquire property under the Lands Acquisition Act, the provisions of that Act will in effect be modified so as to provide for compensation to be paid on a basis which will have regard to firstly, the base value or market value of the land as at the date of declaration of the investigation area; secondly, a value increase factor determined by the Valuer General; and thirdly, any additional improvements approved by the Minister added since the date of declaration of the development area.

The value factor or factors which will allow for normal increases or decreases in the value of land will be fixed by the Valuer General having regard to information available and be set out in the form of a determination and lodged with the Minister. This percentage increase or decrease will be notified to the owner by the Minister and be accepted in a court or arbitration determination as the adjustment to be made to the base value at declaration, by reason of the time lapse until the acquisition date. The normal provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act will generally apply, except that the effective date for the base value will be the date of the first declaration of the investigation area and the only increase in value set will be that fixed by the Valuer General being a normally expected increase rather than a speculative increase resulting from knowledge of the development itself. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bonnett) adjourned. .

page 922

AUSTRALIAN RADIATION LABORATORY, YALLAMBIE, VICTORIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of proposed premises for the Australian Radiation Laboratory at Yallambie, Victoria.

The proposal involves the construction of a 2-storey air-conditioned building, with supporting engineering services, landscaping, road works and car parks. Construction utilises a precast reinforced concrete frame with external precast infill panels; windows are coloured aluminium with a reflective double glass unit to reduce solar heat load; roofing is insulated pre-coloured steel decking, supported on steel beams and purlins. The estimated cost of the proposed work is$3, 250,000. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 922

AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 April (vide page 891), on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– When this debate was adjourned last night I was in the midst of some remarks directed in particular to Australia’s development aid overseas in the field of education. The Bill that we are debating, as honourable members would be aware, is to establish the Australian Development Assistance Agency with responsibilities to administer the developoment assistance fund. Insofar as the Agency is to administer this fund, I hope that in the establishment of its organisation it will pay particular attention to the manner in which that portion of the aid to be provided under the heading of education is to be administered. If the concept of cooperative nation building on which the Colombo Plan was founded is to be fully realised, now is the time for Australia, through the means of this Agency, to make dramatic changes in its approaches to the plan. The essential needs of developing countries can be met not so much by project aid as by people aid. In this area I believe that our resources could be put to more effective use than they would be if we were to continue in the past pattern of the provision of that aid.

Last night I drew the attention of the House to the fact that we provide in our Australian universities and institutes of higher learning the equivalent of a medium sized university. Whereas it is very effective and useful for Australian students to rub shoulders with students from overseas, and whereas the overseas students themselves benefit greatly from their experience in Australia - many illustrations of their contribution to their own countries can be drawn upon - I believe that the money we are putting into a medium sized university could produce a better result in the development of the underdeveloped countries if it were redirected. I would like to see Australia establish what, for shorthand purposes, I would describe as an Australian overseas university. I think rather than bring students to this country and provide teachers to teach them here, we would do more for the developing countries if we were to send an equivalent number of teachers to overseas developing countries to teach students in their own home countries.

The method of achieving this could be by the Agency establishing a university campus in Australia with all the facilities of a conventional university. The essential difference would be that the overseas university would have few lecture rooms and no students resident in Australia. It would have the infrastructure of a university. It might have a small full time and permanent staff. The function of the permanent staff would be to enlist support, through secondment, of teachers and lecturers from the conventional universities. In doing so, the Agency, through an Australian overseas university, would need to liaise with the conventional universities so that lecturers and staff would not lose status or standing if they were to serve the world by taking up appointments in universities and institutes of learning in the developing countries. One can appreciate that from the point of view of university staff, this would be a matter of concern. But if it is a matter of concern we should tackle it and draw on the great reservoir of support that there is in this country, particularly in academic circles, for the provision of greater assistance to overseas countries.

The Australian overseas university would assign either whole faculties or individual teachers seconded from our existing conventional universities under an aid program to teach in overseas countries for periods of 1, 2 or 3 years depending upon the circumstances. The staff sent overseas could receive vacational leave in Australia with additional time allocated for reporting, research and discussion. The university could thus become a nerve centre for Australia’s overseas aid in the education field. It should be properly equipped to conduct regular seminars and seasonal schools for academic and non-academic people concerned with overseas aid. It should aim at co-ordinating and distributing information on aid requirements, highlighting areas of special need and building up a comprehensive picture of the whole region in which we are making an aid contribution.

Initially, the faculties of an Australian overseas university should be those relevant to the immediate requirements of the developing countries. Chief among these would be medicine at the community medicine level, nursing, agricultural and veterinary science, engineering and economics. In all cases these faculties should be related to the circumstances of the developing countries rather than to the situa tion of a sophisticated developed country. Though it is important that there be a pool of educated people in the developing countries who understand the operations of a developed country, it is more important that the developing countries have technicians, educated academics and professional men understanding the environment in which they live and the development of which we wish to assist.

While it is undoubtedly rewarding for overseas students to have tertiary education in Australia, the ultimate aim of our aid in the education field should be to expand the development in the developing countries. Unfortunately, too many of the overseas students who come to this country, who benefit themselves, then do not return to their countries to make the sort of contribution that the dollar of aid provided in Australia would make if the education support were given by us in the developing countries. We must ensure that developing countries get the maximum benefit from every dollar of Australian aid. In this respect, my sentiments echo those being expressed by many far more expert in the aid field than I. I draw attention to the remarks made by Mr I. B. Webb in a paper which he delivered some time last year. He reached the following conclusion:

I consider that training Asians in Australia is generally of lesser aid value compared to the value to be gained from similar educational expenditure within Asia;

Likewise, Robin Burns, a member of the staff of the La Trobe University expressed similar views as follows:

In conclusion, there are sufficient grounds to call for a complete re-examination of our whole approach to overseas student programs.

It is my hope that when it is established the aid agency will give serious consideration to the value that we are now receiving for our contribution in the area of education aid by concentrating on bringing overseas students to Australia. In putting this plea I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not want people to think that I do not believe there is some value in overseas students coming to Australia. I believe there is. But we have tended to concentrate on that method of providing education aid at a time when circumstances have changed and the needs of the developing countries have become more for education aid in their own countries. Their problems are, in the main, problems of rural economies. Their problems are problems in the area of community health and hygiene.

They need education aid in this technical area for the teaching and training of agricultural extension workers and of community nurses and doctors to go out into the villages. So often some of the people who are trained in Australia either stay here or leave Australia and go to other developed countries or return to the urban centres of the underdeveloped world when the places to which they need to return are the rural areas of underdeveloped countries so that the standards of the poor can be raised, so that health facilities can be improved and so that the opportunities for education can be expanded.

In this whole area of aid the amount of provision that Australia makes is necessarily small in world terms, but as we expand the proportion of our gross national product that we allocate towards aid it is important to ensure that we get the best value in terms of world development. When we come to look at value in terms of world development we must necessarily place our assessment in a time dimension. So often the world is faced with crises and disasters and we come to the aid of people afflicted by such crises and disasters. But that aid is a once only contribution. It alleviates in the short run but it does not really resolve the problems of the world in the long run.

When we look at our aid I hope that we will concentrate on aid that has a long run content. We should concentrate more and more on providing education so that the scope and abilities of the people in the developing countries can be expanded. I would also urge that the agency have a look at the speed with which our aid applications are processed and, when processed, with which the aid is actually provided. I also hope that the Department of Foreign Affairs will be given a small fund of its own that can be used purely for political aid so that our general aid can be based on a broad assessment and not used to buy contacts, as aid is so often used. That aid is necessary in terms of developing our foreign relations, but it should not be categorised as world development aid. It should be categorised as part of the process of foreign relations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– Three years ago - in fact, in February 1971 - I was fortunate enough to be a representative of this

Parliament on a parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, which is on the border of France and Germany. The occasion of the visit was to take part in a debate in that European parliament on the subject of aid for developing countries. One of the documents which formed the background to this debate was the annual review of the subject of aid for developing countries drawn up by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Australia was at that time a member of the Development Assistance Committee but not of the OECD as a whole. Of course, since that time Australia has become a full member of the OECD. As a member of just the DAC, Australia was invited to take part in the debate at Strasbourg, along with such other DAC members as the United States of America, Canada and Japan, which were obviously not members of the European Parliament itself but which were invited to debate the subject in that European parliament. Since then I have become an admirer of the work of the Development Assistance Committee.

I would like to draw attention to the annual review of the Committee. Indeed, I believe that the most useful general reference work on the practical aspects of development assistance is the review to which I have referred. According to the latest DAC review, which was issued in November 1973, the net flow of resources to developing countries and multilateral agencies amounted to US$1 9,700m in the year 1972. It is regrettable that 1972 is the last full year for which these statistics are available. Almost half of that amount - US$8,650m - was disbursed in the form of official development assistance and other official flows. Of this official aid, about half was distributed in the form of grants. Private flows, mostly in investment form, came to US$8,540m while US$1, 028m was supplied in the form of grants from private and voluntary agencies. That gives some idea of the extent of aid in the world.

I would like to say more about that overall world picture in the context of this debate concerning the setting up of an Australian development assistance agency. However, because of the amount of business to be undertaken by the House today. I have been asked to restrict my remarks to only half the normal time. As the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) knows, being an amenable fellow I have agreed to that request. So I shall leave it to those who are interested in the world picture to look up the contributions to this debate last night, in particular, and today from both sides of the House. In particular, I want to commend to the House the contributions of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke), which I thought were very worthwhile contributions that were made in a bipartisan approach. Indeed the whole of this debate has been more or less along that line.

Instead I shall say something about Australian development assistance. I shall confine what I have to say to some general comments on the character of Australian aid and to a comparison of Australian aid with that of a number of other major donors. The main features of Australia’s development assistance are, I think, firstly the heavy emphasis on bilateral programs. The Australian practice in concentrating on bilateral aid is consistent with that of other countries. Multilateral programs account for only 10 per cent of the assistance received by Asian countries. The second feature of Australia’s aid is the heavy concentration on Papua New Guinea, which absorbs about two-thirds of Australia’s official development assistance and an even greater percentage of the total flow of financial resources. The third is the emphasis on grants and grantlike contributions.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Australia’s performance compares favourably with the efforts of others on the basis of the several standard formulas for evaluating aid that are used by the Development Assistance Committee. At this stage I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out comparative aid-giving performance in 1972, which I think is the last full year for which figures are available. I have shown this table to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

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

Mr HURFORD:

– I thank the House. What is so important is not the extent of the aid as shown in that table but the impact of the aid. Among the donor countries, Australia has, of course, a unique position. This has been pointed out already in this debate. Australia is the only developed country in the region of the poor developing countries of the world. Japan aside, Australia is the only country to which the security implications of underdevelopment are of regional concern. It follows, therefore, that what should concern Australia is not merely her performance as a provider of development assistance, but the actual impact of her development assistance. In my view it is essential that Australia be involved in ascertaining whether the countries in the region are progressing satisfactorily in their development plans and, if they are not, how Australia and other donor countries should significantly increase their efforts. In other words, we must be an aid leader.

As is seen by reference to the table incorporated in Hansard, according to the various formulas used by the Development Assistance Committee, Australia’s record as a donor nation compares very favourably. This way of looking at aid, however, takes little account of its impact. The figures setting out Australia’s performance might look good to an Australian. But we could ask ourselves: What would a citizen of an Asian recipient country think of them? Two-thirds of Australia’s development assistance, as I said earlier, goes to Papua New Guinea. Therefore, the amount of aid to be disbursed to the 1,000 million Asians who live in the region between Pakistan and the Philippines is less than $80m in the current financial year. Most Asians probably would see this expenditure as a modest effort by the only really prosperous country in this region. Perhaps they also would observe that Australia spends more than twice as much on defence assistance to Asian countries as it does on economic assistance. These criticisms aside, however, our assistance has been welcomed and relatively wisely spent.

Australia’s aid to Asia is heavily concentrated on Indonesia which currently is receiving about 40 per cent of our total allocation to Asia. The case for a special effort in support of Indonesia is not difficult to sustain. Indonesia is Australia’s nearest neighbour and, at the same time, her development problems are very serious and complex. She has a population of 125 million. Since they gained independence the Indonesian people have endured nearly all the problems and setbacks associated with developing countries. Indonesia’s political stability and progress in economic development are matters of vital concern to our country. A severe crisis in the Indonesian economy almost certainly would herald a period of political instability with obvious implications for Australian security. When these circumstances are placed in proper perspective, an even greater Australian effort in development assistance would not be difficult to justify. It could be argued that our present effort is a modest one for a prosperous neighbour, to whom Indonesia’s success in overcoming her development and related problems are of such vital importance in foreign policy as well as long term commercial considerations.

The Government, of course, has announced that $500m will go to Papua New Guinea over the next 3 years. If I may interpose a personal view here, I am hopeful that other countries also will help in the development of Papua New Guinea, to take some of the burden of that country off our shoulders so that we can spread the aid that is available. Already in this debate we have seen evidence of the good intentions to raise our aid to 0.7 per cent of gross national product. Undoubtedly there is some truth in various allegations about our aid. The existing programs of development assistance are not without their critics in Australia, as in other donor countries. It is sometimes argued that Australia should limit her development assistance and concentrate on cleaning up her own house. These critics allege that because a proportion of our aid to developing countries is wasted through corruption and inefficiency, these funds would be more effectively spent at home; we should not give aid to countries where corruption is present. It is alleged also that most Australian aid goes to countries under dictatorial regimes, where the funds are spent largely on making the rich of those countries richer, thereby exacerbating social inequalities. It is contended also that foreign aid weakens the resolve of the people in less developed countries and encourages undue reliance on external support.

The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke), among others, applied himself to these problems in this debate last night. It is, of course, incontestable that corruption and maladministration are present in less developed countries. But these conditions are themselves symptoms of underdevelopment and indications that the countries in which they exist are in need of help. A primary task facing the development economists and governments of donor and recipient countries is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of development assistance. This problem is not an easy one to solve, but substantial progress has been made in recent years. I should like to end on that point because the whole rationale of this Bill is to set up a statutory agency in which people will be specialists in this field of aid for developing countries. I welcome the introduction of the Bill. I keep to my promise not to speak for the full time I am allowed in this debate. I only trust that all the hopes expressed by honourable members from both sides of this House will be fulfilled in the specialist team which will form this Agency.

Mr GARLAND:
.Curtin

– I found the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in introducing this Bill curious and disappointing. I notice that hardly any reference has been made to the Australian Development Assistance Agency, which is the subject of this Bill, by supporters of the Government. They have confined themselves to speaking about foreign aid in general. One could link in that respect the speeches of honourable members who spoke recently on the International Monetary Agreements Bill which made certain provisions with respect to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Let me refer to the aspects I have in mind. The Prime Minister made great play, as he usually does when talking about foreign aid, about the percentage of gross national product that Australia and other countries spend on foreign aid. As the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who led for the Opposition in this debate, pointed out, that surely is almost an irrelevancy. It is a debating point rather not substance of the matter. The percentage of gross national product which is devoted by Australia to foreign aid I believe is a favourable one. But the concept is a United Nations one and has little to do with the humanitarian aspect, which is the most important objective of foreign aid.

What really emerges from the Prime Minister’s speech on this occasion, as on others, is concern with how Australia’s foreign aid looks to the rest of the world and to members of his own Party rather than what he is doing about the problem. I say, by way of an aside, that that seems to me to be much the Prime Minister’s attitude to problems concerning Aborigines. Aborigines, after all, live in our country but aid to them is almost analogous to foreign aid because they are a different people and are mostly a separate people.

The Prime Minister said nothing much in his speech of what his Government would do. His speech dealt with the structure. Indeed, he seems to have a pre-occupation with structure and detail. The Prime Minister loves to talk about details, dates, page numbers and that sort of thing. Let me highlight the main part of his second reading speech. As reported at page 278 of Hansard of 12 March 1974, the Prime Minister said:

The decision to reorganise the administration of our economic aid programs is based on the view that improvements in aid must be effected in almost all aspects of our aid endeavours - in the machinery for formulating policy,, in ensuring greater attention to the welfare and distributive effects of our aid, in evaluating the effectiveness of our various schemes, in bringing greater expertise into our staffing arrangements and in more directly associating the community with the program.

Those aims are important. But why could not the Department of Foreign Affairs deal with them? In fact it has been engaged in this work for years. If the standard is not high enough, then as head of government he should improve it without going into yet another field for statutory corporation. The whole question of ministerial responsibility is involved. It is another proposal by the Government to set up a statutory body which, in a sense, will hide behind the Minister from the people and protect the Minister from certain criticism. In saying this I disassociate any criticism from Mr Johnson who has been appointed director. This is a policy decision of the Government itself. I have every confidence, as have my colleagues, in Mr Johnson’s capacity and objectivity. However I make the point that the Prime Minister’s whole speech is designed to describe a structure. Very little argument - in fact none - has been presented to show that the agency will do the job any more efficiently than could the Department isself. The Bill provides for another of these bodies unaccountable to Parliament in practice. This is what such bodies become. I instance the Council for the Arts.

Mr Hurford:

– What about the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs?

Mr GARLAND:

– The honourable member has made his speech; I will make mine. Every representation made to the Minister is sent to the Council for a reply which comes back and is automatically signed by the Minister. If the honourable member can show me one illustration of any variation being made by the Prime Minister with respect to advice from the Council of the Arts I shall be interested to see it. I think the Prime Minister produced one reason for the proposed agency. He said that the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea is in favour of it. The Prime Minister actually made that statement. Good heavens, fancy the recipient of such vast sums as Australia proposes to make available to Papua New Guinea, saying anything critical of the structure through which Australia decides to disburse aid. Naturally the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea said that he hopes to get on well with the agency. Of course he would say it. That is a ridiculous argument and the fact that the Prime Minister introduced it as some sort of support indicates the weak ground he is on.

Turning to discuss foreign aid in a more general way, I think it is clear that the result of the aid that has been supplied by donor countries has been much less effective than was hoped, certainly at the end of the Second World War and as short a period ago as 10 to IS years. That is not the fault of the aid itself. The emotionalism and the idealism which existed and prompted the provision of that aid was proper but the aid has been of limited value, firstly because the complexity of the issues have been difficult to overcome. There have been interlocking social, political and economic forces at work and the task turned out to be far greater than people imagined. Indeed I think that every gain that has been made - they have been relatively few - has only uncovered a new layer of problems. Yet .it is in the nature of man, fortunately, to try to overcome problems and to find a new and better way. I hope that Australia continues to give a higher and higher priority to helping countries less fortunate than it. Of course that involves the majority of countries.

The second reason that aid has not been as effective as one would have hoped has been the attitude of the donor countries and the recipient countries. Experience has shown that donor countries have been inclined to be rather patronising and rather remote. They have been preoccupied with the image they were creating rather than the effect the aid was having. I am sure this applies to our Prime Minister. There was and is a lack of understanding by all of us concerning the best method to employ in determining how money can best be used. I think there has been a propensity to try to supervise from afar and this has not been of enough use. I think there is a resistance by representatives of donor governments in countries in really getting down to grips with the problems. They see themselves in a supervisory role. Might I say, as an aside, that I do not think it will help this major aspect of our foreign policy if we make the provision of great embassies and residences in all the countries that we have recognised and are recognising. This will create a barrier between our representatives in those countries and the people of them. I hope that this comment appeals to the Minister for Overseas Trade Pr J. F. Cairns), who is sitting at the table, since he frequently takes the part of the less fortunate people - the lower income groups - in various countries. I hope that we will not get into a situation where our representatives who, in the past, have been reasonably close to a wide range of classes and income groups in other countries, cut them off and join the international diplomatic group of sophisticates which is so unliked around the world.

I think that the recipients of aid also have made a number of errors. They certainly have not always used that aid for the best economic purposes. All too frequently they have allowed overriding political influences. They have not hesitated to insult governments, personalities and public figures of donor countries. This can hardly help in a world where personal contacts have an effect. Frequent coup d’etat and other political events have eroded the desire of many countries to give aid. In the United States of America this is called aid fatigue. It is certainly an important influence on the United States Congress at present and on other donor countries. It allows those elements in the community who like to say that we should not give so much, more of a debating point and it helps to hold back the flow of worthwhile investment and other aid. Another reason is that much of the aid that has been given has had to be used for urgent and immediate purposes. In other words, it has been used for direct consumption, usually in conditions when one could hardly resist such use, rather than in investment avenues which would be far better and of more lasting use.

One would hope to see all aid go into some capital investment category but, unfortunately because of national tragedies, that simply is not possible. However it does break down the effectiveness of aid. Sometimes, too, the recipient countries have not been sufficiently self-reliant. They have been inclined to see themselves as being continuing recipients forever and a day and they have not put the aid to the best use. All these things indicate that donors and recipients can improve their behaviour, their relationships with another and make aid more effective. I come back to my introductory point that the money that has been spent is entirely justified. Certainly in Australia and in other countries the amount provided has been far too small. The seriousness of the situation can hardly be exaggerated. It has been emphasised by every speaker with the exception of the Prime Minister. The gap which is widening has been alluded to by speakers from both sides of the House.

Poverty and degradation have been mentioned. The honourable member for Kooyong mentioned that the struggle for survival was estimated to involve about one billion people by the end of this decade and 2 billion by 1990. Clearly no matter how much the people of Australia may wish to ignore it at times, the problem simply will not go away. It is made worse by the lack of success of aid and the disillusionment that exists in donor countries.

The vastness of the problem is affected by world wide inflation at various rates - Australia, of course, has the dubious honour of being one of the leaders in this field - by the oil and energy shortage and particularly by the oil price rise. Some suggestions have been made. I noted the other day a Dow Jones report of a suggestion by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund that serious consideration should be given to recycling Arab oil earnings. He put forward the view that the IMF, as the middle man, should encourage the Arabs to invest their earnings in their customers’ countries. That suggestion was made in an endeavour to help less developed countries. It has received some pretty severe criticism from some American Treasury officials. But there are world bodies which are endeavouring to grapple with these problems. The international monetary instability in another difficulty which helps to widen the gap as do the balance of payments deficits and surpluses imbalance with which the Treasurer dealt last week in his speech. AH those aspects are detrimental mainly to the less developed countries. I noted that the Treasurer, in his statement on International Monetary Reform which he made after his visit to the Committee of Twenty, referred to this very briefly - in fact too briefly. It may well be that he may see fit to elaborate on the Government’s policy in this area in order to make up somewhat for the lack of any specific statement in the Prime Minister’s introduction of this Bill. I think it is in the interests of the whole of Australia and certainly of this

House to know what the Government’s view and policy are in relation to that most serious matter.

In debating this Bill yesterday the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) pointed up the problems as he saw them and again, with very little, if any, allusion to the subject of the Bill which is the structure of the Australian Development Assistance Agency, he criticised many things. He went out of his way to quote economists who had made some criticism of the World Bank and the IMF style, whatever that is. It is pretty easy to criticise these bodies. Certainly one would be expecting a lot to expect bodies like that to be 100 per cent effective. But I do not think that approach really gets us very far, with due respect to the honourable member. Of all the donor countries that could be considered, of all the countries with a strong gross national product, he singled out for criticism the United States, as did the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) in a speech on the International Monetary Agreements Bill. I dealt with the criticism that I made of the honourable member for Gellibrand the other day. If that is not ideologically influenced I do not know what is because there are plenty of other countries that one could criticise. To point out the United States - a country which has been most generous in its aid around the world - is, I think, to look at the matter with ideological blinkers. Both those honourable members and also the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) in that earlier debate emphasised the urgency and the need for aid policies but where in this statement made by the Prime Minister is there any indication of his policies? What he has done has been just to present us with a shell. There is nothing of substance before us. There are no guidelines on methods of development aid. There are no views on the types of aid. There is no indication of the Government’s policy on the level of aid in Australian currency. To me the strong indication is that this is just another show. It is dramatisation for domestic political purposes and international public relations purposes. The problem surely is much more serious and deserves far more attention than that. I do not believe that the Prime Minister’s speech enhances the Government’s position. Not one of the Government supporters who expressed such emotion in favour of more urgent aid had the courage of his convictions to criticise the Prime Minister.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– To me it always seems to be a great shame that members of Parliament are not given much more time to debate a measure such as the Bill before the House. After all, year in and year out the Government sends us overseas on delegations and some honourable members make many trips on their own behalf. I feel that members of Parliament have much to offer in debates on matters like this. My own personal interest in this field goes back to the year I became a member of this House, which was a long time ago. I think I suggested to the Government of the day in my maiden speech that it should try to bend current tariff policies in order to allow simple manufactured goods to come into this country. It was probably coincidental that about 18 months later the Government of the day led by the Holt Ministry, I think it was, did just that. Wherever one goes in Asia today it is accepted that Australia did have a very serious battle in respect of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in order to bring about that state of affairs. The number of countries which have applied for special tariff rates to enable simple manufactured goods to come into this country has slowly grown to over 60. I would say that this is only second to the fact that Australia deals in grants and not loans in the important impact that is made in many of the neighbouring countries around us. Wherever I travel I find that this concession is greatly appreciated.

I am rather concerned that the Government has not yet declared that donations of funds to private organisations involved in providing overseas aid may be claimed as tax deductions. I remember very clearly addressing a crowd of about SOO people at the Adelaide University not so very long ago. At that meeting the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) stated quite specifically that when a Labor government came to power in this country donations to welfare agencies of this sort would be tax deductible. We have not seen anything along these lines yet. I draw this to the attention of the Government in case by some chance it has overlooked a policy that was put forward on that occasion by at least one of its back-bench members. I do not know whether he . is influential today or not. I would like to hear the Minister at the table (Dr J. F. Cairns) say, if he replies later, whether the Government has any intention of helping private agencies along those lines because I believe that the honourable member for

Adelaide was not the only one who made that statement prior to the last general election.

Australia provides grants for developmental purposes and for all aid programs in one form or another. I am thinking of the situation as it applied to the Indonesian shopping list in recent years. Other countries give quite favourable loans but I think it is as well for this House to take account of the fact that many nations, particularly European countries do not give such favourable loans at all. In fact if one looks at the World Bank loans and the holiday period granted to recipient countries for repayment of the loan one finds that many of the quantitative figures on aid to developing areas are infinitely less beneficial to the recipient countries than would be the case if there were a straight-out World Bank loan with a holiday period of three to five years for the repayment of the capital. I think this Government has a great deal to live up to in relation to past performances by the two or three previous governments that ruled Australia. We have made major break-throughs in helping these nations to develop. Wherever I go in Asia and further afield today I find that our assistance is very much appreciated.

The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in a magnificent speech put the seal on our policy in relation to this matter. He made several constructive suggestions and I do not intend to repeat anything he said. But I welcome the opportunity to make those 3 points very briefly. We know the hurry that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) is in at present in relation to the Bills to be considered. I hope that perhaps the Government may take note of at least one of the 3 points.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– in reply - In closing the debate I should first of all like to say that it is very pleasing that the Opposition is supporting the measure and that there is so much agreement in the House about the necessity for aid and in fact about the necessity for an agency of this kind. I was particularly impressed yesterday with the speech by the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) who gave a quiet, reasoned presentation. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) did also. I was also impressed by the speeches from this side by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin). I would say that specifically, in relation to the speeches I have heard this afternoon, it seemed to me that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) was somewhat patronising not only towards the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) but also toward the Government of Papua New Guinea. He pointed out that the Government of Papua New Guinea approved of the establishment of an agency and then he said: That is what one could expect because the Government of Papua New Guinea is getting a great deal of aid - $500m.’ I think that the character of what the honourable member for Curtin said throughout most of his speech was in that context, and I would dismiss it.

I think that the point made just now by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), in wanting this Government after 15 months in office to allow contributions to private agency funds to be tax deductible - to my knowledge for 8 or 9 years that was asked of previous governments of which he was a supporter - shows up in strange contrast. I am sure that I could list, if I knew enough about it, at least two or three members of his Party who also supported that view - and he mentioned also the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who presumably did so from this side. So I do not think that the honourable member for Angas has made much political capital out of that point, and I see no other reason for raising it at all.

This Bill deals with the structure of aid. To be relevant to it - which is not always the practice in this House - one would have to discuss structure. The Prime Minister has been criticised for being relevant, that is for keeping his speech to an examination of the subject matter of the Bill and not wandering around the world in respect to aid. He was followed by the spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) who reminded me of that prominent member of the legal firm of Ranting and Raving, who rather than use logic used histrionics. I do not know whether the honourable member for Kooyong did this as a conscious thing or whether he was just led into it by the prevailing practice in the House these days. But I was not impressed by this attempt to say that the Government must be committed to more aid. I remember that being said from the Opposition side in respect to preceding governments for the greater part of the 19 years that I have been a member of this House - and it was valid. The preceding governments should have been committed to more aid and the present ‘government should be more committed to aid. But I do not think the Opposition spokesman needed to use two-thirds of his speech asserting that point. I think that aid is marginal in the future of developing countries, although it is important. But I do stress that it is marginal. What is needed in most of the developing countries where aid is most relevant is a deep transformation in the social and economic life of the people. I emphasise that this must be brought about by the people themselves.

It is not likely tobe very democratic, either. But hopefully one would expect that it would not be too much resisted by the developing countries. But whilst aid is important and we must give it increasing attention I think it is only marginal to the future of the 2,000 million people who have been referred to several times in the course of this debate. In view of the references to the President of the World Bank that have been made in this debate, I should like to say that I am very glad indeed that the President of the World Bank is making the kinds of statements now that were quoted and recorded on page 874 of the parliamentary debates, as given in the speech of the honourable member for Macarthur. The President of the World Bank is now stressing the needs of a developing world in which children under 5 account for only 20 per cent of the population but for more than 60 per cent of the deaths. He said:

A developing world in which two-thirds of the children who have escaped death will live on, restricted in their growth by malnutrition . . .

A developing world in which there are 100 million more adult illiterates than there were 20 years ago.

A developing world, in short, in which death and disease are rampant, education and employment scarce, squalor and stagnation prominent, and opportunity and the realisation of personal potential drastically limited. This is the world of today for the 2,000 million human beings–

I am very glad indeed that the President of the World Bank, Mr McNamara, stressed that point, and I approve of that completely and have done so for many years. What I was trying to point out in an interjection to the honourable member for Kooyong is that the President of the World Bank has not always been in that position. Again I refer to what was said by the honourable member for Macarthur as recorded on page 875 of the parliamentary debates. He said:

More than 6 per cent of the total world output is devoted to the military - 21/2 times what all governments spend on health . . .

He continued:

The Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate estimated that the full budgetary cost of the Vietnam war to the United States from 1965 to 1970 was $104.4 billion- a per capita cost of $500,

That was presumably $500 for each American citizen. During those years Mr McNamara was the Secretary of State of the United States that carried out that war. I was merely pointing out that I realise that Mr McNamara had not always been in his present position. I am very glad indeed that he now is.

There was some criticism of the Prime Minister because of his second reading speech on the Bill, presumably because he confined himself so much to the relevance of the Bill. But the Prime Minister pointed out that the Australian Government is fully determined that its aid will serve the objectives that are agreed upon. This is one of the reasons why the Agency is being created. I do not think that there is any room for doubt that the Government sees aid as a contribution by the Australian people to the welfare of our less fortunate neighbours and that this is the way in which the people of this country want to see it.

Several members of the Opposition expressed regret that the Prime Minister had not been able to say more about aid policies in his second reading speech. In fact the speech gave some very important guide lines as to the objectives of the new Agency, such as ensuring greater attention to the welfare and distributive effects of our aid, in improved evaluation of our aid programs, in bringing greater expertise into our staffing arrangements and in more directly associating the community with the programs. Since taking office the Government has broken much new ground in the aid field, such as accepting a commitment to the United Nations target of devoting 0.7 per cent of our gross national product to foreign aid and contributing to international activities in the field of family planning. The Prime Minister pointed out in his speech that over the years there has been a great increase in the volume and complexity of Australia’s economic aid. He made no attempt to take anything away from previous governments in relation to that. He went back to the Colombo Plan. He spoke of developments since 1950. He spoke of the Special Commonwealth African assistance plan, the South Pacific aid program and other bilateral programs. He took nothing away from previous governments. I think it is to be regretted that the Opposition spokesman and some of the Opposition members who followed him - only some - endeavoured to take something away from the Prime Minister.

The purpose of this Bill was not to enable us to discuss those things or even, as I have said, to point out deficiencies in one side or the other. It was to bring to the notice of the House that for good reasons that have been widely recognised it was necessary to bring into existence in Australia a new organisation to prevent the morass and the proliferation. The Prime Minister said in his second reading speech:

In this 20 years of growth and diversification since the foundingof the Colombo Plan, the organisational structure to administer our expanding aid programs developed in an ad hoc fashion, with functions distributed and shared among various departments. Up to December 1973, the Department of External Territories administered aid to Papua New Guinea. Bilateral aid to countries other than PNG was administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department of Education administered the . Commonwealth Co-operation in Education scheme, and played a substantial role as a training authority for government-sponsored trainees under all aid schemes. The Treasury maintained an interest in all Australian aid proposals….. Many other departments, though not connected primarily with the aid function, had activities with aid aspects or implications. The solution was cumbersome and clearly in need of review.

The purpose of this Bill was to try to rectify that situation. Hardly any of the spokesmen on the Opposition side have even recognised that. This deficiency was apparent and in March of last year the Prime Minister commissioned a task force to examine all the options for a unified administration to administer all aid, including multilateral aid, all bilateral aid and aid to an independent Papua New Guinea.

The Prime Minister appointed a committee to have a look at this and to see what could be done. He pointed out that the report of the committee of 6 March 1973 included the following recommendation:

The existing structure involving dispersal of aid functions among several departments needs to be substantially reviewed in the light of the increased complexities and sophistication of development assistance and to accommodate the administration of aid to an independent Papua New Guinea.

I think that what the committee concluded is what everyone else has concluded or should conclude. Therefore, it seems to me that there was a very strong case for the establishment of an agency somewhat along these lines. I think it is a pity that in some ways the debate did not refer to whether that was thought to be justified or not.

Some honourable members queried the responsibility of the Agency to the Minister and through him to Parliament. I point out that clause 6 (3) of the Bill provides:

The Director-General is the executive officer of the Agency and shall, subject to and in accordance with the directions of the Minister, conduct the affairs of the Agency.

I think I heard one member of the Opposition say that he preferred a situation like that. I do not know what other members of the Opposition think about it. But certainly the Government prefers a situation like that for an agency of this kind. It is quite clear that the Minister will have control of the Agency and it follows that the Minister will be answerable to Parliament for all that the Agency does. Moreover, clause 30 of the Bill provides that the Agency shall give the Minister a report on its operations, together with financial statements, for presentation to Parliament.

Some question was raised on the score of defence aid. Reference to the definition in clause 3 makes it clear that defence aid is entirely outside the ambit of the Agency. For the purposes of the Bill, ‘aid’ is defined to mean aid for social and economic development and for disaster relief. This is clear and unequivocal. So the answer to the question raised by some Opposition speakers is that this Agency has nothing to do with defence aid. A number of other questions raised in the debate deserve a brief comment, and I want to be as brief as I can. I appreciate the concern expressed by some honourable members about the excessive cost of multilaterial institutions. Not all multilateral institutions, however, are in this category and there are many reasons why Australia, like other members of the international community, should support them. I think it can be assumed that the Agency will pay close attention to this matter.

Some question was raised about the advisability of placing more emphasis on training overseas rather than in Australia. The Prime Minister has indicated already the Government’s sympathy with this approach and aid officials already are examining ways of stepping up the assistance currently being given in this field. With reference to comments made this afternoon, I think that training in Aus tralia can be subject to beneficial reassessment in respect of aid abroad, and I expect that this Agency will soon be well equipped to do that. I think that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) correctly raised this point. The Prime Minister has mentioned already that we are quite conscious of the need for improvement in this area of training and this will be one of the tasks of the Agency.

The Government also is aware of the negative effects which other policies adopted by developed countries can have on developing countries. We already have shown evidence of our concern in this field by improving the trade preference scheme for less developed countries. In reply to the remarks just made by the honourable member for Angas in which he presumably calls on the Government for an improvement in this area, let me say that there is no exaggeration in putting the position this way: In IS months, by tariff reductions generally, by tariff reductions specifically in respect of some industries such as footwear and textiles and by tariff reduction for lesser developed countries, this Government has done more than any other Australian government had done in 10 years. Some concern was expressed about the abuses to which aid is sometimes subject in recipient countries. I know that particular countries have been mentioned in this regard. But I am assured that Australian aid to the countries that have been mentioned is not going astray and is now and has been under very careful control. It is quite clear that the Development Assistance Agency will be in a better position to see that those safeguards are applied in the future.

The only other thing I want to say is that several honourable members have expressed their confidence in the man who will be recommended to the Governor-General as the first Director-General of the Agency, namely Mr L. W. Johnson. The Prime Minister, of course, shares the confidence that honourable members have expressed in Mr Johnson. Although I do not know him personally, I too share that confidence. I am sure that Mr Johnson and the Agency in turn will pay great attention to the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House in this debate and will find in them a good deal that is helpful in the very challenging task of beginning the overseeing of the improvement in Australia’s aid performance.

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 Dr 3. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 934

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes. I was misrepresented by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) in the second reading debate when he asserted that I made a promise at a meeting - I think he said it was attended by SOO people - at the University of Adelaide, that overseas aid gifts would be made an allowable deduction by a Labor government. I made no such promise. For a number of year I have attended Australian Labor Party Federal Conferences and indeed for many years before coming into, this Parliament I was a member of the Federal Conference Economic and Trade Committee. So I would know that no such promise could be made. No such specific details of policy were ever made by the Labor Party prior to coming into office. In fact I favour a system of tax rebates rather than concessional deductions. That proves that I would never have made such a promise. I believe in encouraging private giving and I would have said so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member claims that the statement made was not correct. He has explained where he has been personally misrepresented and, as he knows, there can be no further debate or comment on the subject matter.

Mr HURFORD:

– There is a further explanation that I would like to make because it may explain how the memory of the honourable member for Angas is at fault.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! When making a personal explanation an honourable member explains where he has been misrepresented. At that point the personal explanation is completed and there can be no debate on the subject matter or further expressions as to how the misrepresentation may have eventuated.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GILES:

– Yes. My memory is quite clear. I regret that I was not in the chamber for the opening 30 seconds of the remarks of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) but I think that he indicated clearly that my memory was at fault or that I played lightly with the truth. This is not so. I remember this case clearly because afterwards I was harangued by a lot of very well meaning people about why my Party would not do as the honourable member for Adelaide had suggested that night. That is my clear memory. I would deprecate it if the honourable member took this point too far because my memory is very clear on this matter.

Mr Hurford:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that in these circumstances it would be impossible for the Chair to say whether the statement made by the honourable member for Angas or the statement made the honourable member for Adelaide is correct.

Dr J F Cairns:

– You do not have to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I accept the point made by the Minister for Overseas Trade that the Chair does not have to make a judgment on whether either statement is correct. The honourable member for Adelaide claimed that he had been misrepresented by the honourable member for Angas. These personal explanations could go on for the rest of the evening and both honourable gentlemen would be standing up and saying that the other was incorrect. For the record the honourable member for Adelaide has stated his position as to where the misrepresentation occurred. At the moment that is the situation.

Mr Hurford:

– With due deference to the Chair, I think that I should be allowed to have the final say in this matter. The allegation has been made against me and I seek to make a further explanation about this because I have again been misrepresented by the honourable member for Angas.

Mr Giles:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could solve the situation.

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

– Order! The honourable member for Adelaide has now sought to make a further personal explanation. I will hear what the honourable member for Adelaide has to say. I would like him to be as brief and concise as possible.

Mr HURFORD (Adelaide)- The House knows that for a number of years I have been involved with a number of organisations, in company with relations of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). It would have been far wider known if I had supported the cause of those people seeking concessional deductions for gifts for organisations like Austcare and Community Aid Abroad which deal with aid to foreign countries. In fact I have felt strongly that if such aid were given from public funds the Government would have to be more involved with those organisations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the honourable member is now debating what should or should not be given. I feel that at this point of time the personal explanations have been made.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Does the honourable member for Curtin claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GARLAND:

– Yes. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) misrepresented me several times in his closing remarks. I will deal with only one of them. He said that in my speech I had been patronising to the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea. If he reads Hansard when it is published tomorrow it will be quite clear to him that what I was referring to was what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said in introducing the Bill. He said that the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Somare, had said that he looks forward to a fruitful and friendly relationship with the Agency. The point I made was that inserting that into the speech was no argument for the support of the view that the Agency was worth while and that it should be put forward by the Government. It was simply a statement which one would fully expect to be made by the chief minister or prime, minister of a country which was a recipient or potential recipient of Australian aid.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– As a personal explanation just on that account, let me say that that is exactly what I said. One can take whatever interpretation one chooses - the one I took or the one the honourable member took.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Does the honourable member for Kooyong claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes. I have been very restrained over the last few minutes as people have argued whether they said things or they did not. I want to make it quite clear that some imputations were made against me by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns), in his normally gratuitous manner, with which I was not going to deal. But I will deal with one of them. There is no doubt that when the Minister was referring to the nature in which I addressed this House last night he was condemning me for relying in part on addresses made by the President of the World Bank, Mr Robert McNamara. Those who were in the chamber last night will know that the Minister for Overseas Trade was condemnatory in his comments about both Mr Robert McNamara and his figures.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Figures?

Mr PEACOCK:

– The figures that I produced last night. This just shows that the Minister is very selective.

Dr J F Cairns:

– My interjection was not proceeded with.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I refer the Minister to Hansard where he will see that he interjected on me. I asked him whether he challenged Mr McNamara’s figures and he said: ‘Yes, I do.’

Dr J F Cairns:

– But you have not used any figures.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Not at the moment. I am talking about last night. I wish that the Minister’s recollection would go beyond 5 minutes. He should cast aspersions on his own knowledge of history-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister is not helping in the decision that is to be given by the Chair. At this point 3 would say that the matter is an assumption of an opinion during a debate rather than a misrepresentation. There has been no misrepresentation.

page 936

LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING INSTITUTE BILL 1973

Second Resiling

Debate resumed from 13 December 1973 (vide page 4728), on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– The Liberal Party - together with the Australian Country Party, as will be enunciated by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) - supports this Bill. My remarks will be very brief in indicating our support. The matter was canvassed in greater detail by the Liberal Party’s shadow Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, in the Senate. The legislation is a welcome advance. In many ways it flows from the Parliamentary Counsel Act. It was established by a very close friend, the then Attorney-General and then member for Berowra, the Honourable T. E. F. Hughes, who showed much foresight in upgrading the status of parliamentary counsellors and designating them under a separate Act which as I recall was brought into this Parliament in 1970. It then established a separate Office of Parliamentary Counsel and provided for the top 3 positions in the Office to be statutory offices. The separation of the function of drafting Bills from the function of drafting ordinances, regulations and subordinate instruments followed in 1973. The former was to be undertaken by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the latter by the legislation and drafting division of the Attorney-General’s Department. I give that information only as background.

This Bill represents a further development which we welcome. From reading the legislation and the speech of the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) which was incorporated in Hansard it is clear that the function of the proposed institute is, firstly, to conduct courses of instruction and training in legislative drafting. In dealing with this legislation, it is quite obvious to those of us qualified in the law that it requires more than merely legal training to be a skilled draftsman. Australia has suffered as so many other countries have suffered from a lack of sufficiently qualified personnel to conduct the most important drafting that can be undertaken on behalf of the nation and its Parliament.

The second purpose of the institute is to assist other countries, especially developing countries, in the training of legislative draftsmen. I speak with some knowledge in this area - I do not want to develop the point - of the difficulties encountered by Papua New Guinea and the shortages that that country has suffered in not having sufficient numbers of trained draftsmen. We will be able to make a contribution not only to the training of draftsmen here to serve this Parliament but also to the training of draftsmen for the States within the Federation of Australia. We are not limiting ourselves merely to training draftsmen for the Commonwealth Parliament. We would probably train sufficient numbers after 10 years and the role of the institute in that regard may well be completed. So, the institute’s more embracing role of training people to serve here, in the State legislatures and in other countries is a function which the Opposition fully supports.

The third function of the proposed institute which is to undertake research into methods and techniques of legislative drafting with a view to the simplification of laws and procedures and the reduction of costs can of course be firmly endorsed, as can its further principles of fostering interest in and encouraging suitably qualified persons to enter the profession of legislative drafting. This of course flows from the first point I made on the functions of the proposed institute. It is extremely difficult to attract a sufficient number of qualified people to undertake this drafting work with the attractions offered in so many other spheres. It is hoped that the proposal to establish the institute will represent a long term solution by fostering an early interest and generating that interest into a vocation so that greater numbers than we have been attracting can see ahead a profession of legislative drafting. As I say, the problems of attracting suitably qualified persons to this area of endeavour is not confined to Australia, nor as I have indicated is it confined to this Parliament. So, we welcome the establishment of the Institute, particularly because it will provide assistance not only to the Commonwealth Parliament but also to the States and to other countries. This is the basic necessity of any such institute.

I know that the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) will be stating the viewpoint of the Australian Country Party but I know that, from the viewpoint that he has put to me, I am entitled to say that both parties are united with the Government in their support of this Bill. It is of vital importance that the standard of draftsmen should not be lessened, indeed, that it should be improved; but more than that the numbersof draftsmen available to legislatures in Australia and elsewhere be increased significantly. I think there is always a temptation when there is a shortage of draftsmen and when, as I have indicated the attractions of other fields of legal endeavour are so great, to believe that the work of drafting perhaps can be done by those who might be regarded as second best. That cannot be sustained. I believe that a constant endeavour must be made to ensure that the maintenance of the highest standards is carried onwards in the years ahead. Undoubtedly, as Senator Greenwood suggested in his speech, implicit in this Bill is the attempt to sustain that principle and at the same time to attract into the drafting service by means of the training facilities which the institute can provide persons who might otherwise not appreciate the attractions of the office. So, I compliment the Government on taking the additional steps beyond what the former honourable member for Berowra and Attorney-General, Tom Hughes, did by introducing the Parliamentary Counsel Act, in bringing this Bill before the Parliament. We strongly endorse it.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I should like briefly to support the comments made by my colleague, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and say that the Opposition is completely united in its support of the concept of this Legislative Drafting Institute. There are but few comments I should like to make. I think that it is important that we recognise the very real difficulty that parliaments throughout Australia and generally in the English speaking world have experienced in attracting parliamentary counsel or parliamentary draftsmen. It is a field of specialist practice within the law. The complexities of drafting seem to require the peculiar skill of a lawyer and of course the very nature of drafting is of itself a field somewhat removed from the practice of law before the courts or in a solicitor’s or barrister’s office. It is also distinct from any other function of the law that might take place within the Public Service or with corporate enterprise. Having said that, I think it is necessary to get some means by which government can attract more people to study and become professional in this discipline. The establishment of an institute seems to be a natural progression from the establishment of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for which the former Attorney-General, Tom Hughes, was responsible.

However, I must say that I would hope that this institute will operate in such a way as to attract people who are going through normal law courses and perhaps provide some parttime training for those who may well be undertaking courses elsewhere. It does seem that because of the nature of drafting, it may not be necessary for the Institute to operate only with full-time courses. I would hope that part-time courses will be available and persons attending a university or perhaps persons who are employed may be able to do courses in the Institute, and that thereby the reservoir of people skilled in this field will be increased. I am delighted to see that it is intended that assistance will be given through the Institute to help train draftsmen from other countries, especially developing countries. This is laudable. In regard to the Institute itself, it will fill an area where there has been an inadequacy which is reflected in the extent to which so many of the fundamental pieces of legislation need re-assessment and redrafting. Until now there has been no easy facility by which this could be done.

Let me illustrate this point by referring to the taxation laws. While each year there is a significant amendment to the tax laws introduced into this Parliament, the laws themselves have become more and more complex. In order to determine exactly the application of any one section it is normally necessary to look at 3 or 4 of the Acts or the amendments to the Acts that have come in in recent years, as well as refer back to the principal Act itself. The product of the successive pieces of legislation is that we need consistently to try to revise comprehensively legislation which is frequently amended. In the field of shipping, for example, there was a very critical necessity to draft a new piece of Australian legislation to cover the application of the British Merchant Shipping Act to merchant shipping. Initiative was taken in this area when I was Minister for Shipping and Transport some years ago. I know that the initiative taken then is still being pursued under the present Government, but reforms in this field to some degree have been inhibited because of the lack of suitably trained people. With the establishment of the Institute more skilled people may become available to meet the demand.

Of course the Institute itself will not solve the problem. It is necessary that the terms, conditions and nature of employment for parliamentary counsel be attractive and that their job be given the status that is necessary to ensure satisfaction in employment. One would hope that both through the functioning of the office of the Parliamentary Counsel - which certainly in the Commonwealth arena has given enhanced status to draftsmen - and also through the existence of the Institute that status may be forthcoming, and the need that exists in the Commonwealth Parliament and each of the State Parliaments may be met.

I see the need for personnel to be attracted into the Institute, not just from Commonwealth sources but also from the States. I am not aware of the Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply (Mr Enderby) having said where the Institute is to be set up. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will mention where it is to be established. Is it to be part of the Australian National University? Is it to be established in Canberra? I think there are distinct advantages in establishing the Institute in Canberra. Yet I can see that, given the problems of drawing people from the States, there may well be a case for considering operating the Institute in one or other of the States. However, my own belief would be that Canberra is the better venue. I would hope that it can, in some ways, as I say, be associated with another faculty of law in a university so that it will not be an institute in isolation. I think that its function will be se much more satisfactory if it can operate in conjunction with a faculty of law and can attract students from that faculty as well as perhaps students from other faculties who might have a particular bent in this direction.

As far as I can see, there are no basic qualifications required of persons who may be admitted into the Institute to undertake a course. I am not sure that legal training is in fact, the only basic requirement. I do not know whether it is intended that persons should need to have any graduate qualification at the time of their admission into a course, nor do I know whether the courses are intended to be completely comprehensive, but I would hope that the Institute is not looked at as being a place for lawyers only. I think some skills are needed in the drafting field which may be pertinent to drafting as distinct from the practice of law. I tried to draw that distinction when I first mentioned the contrast between the obligations of a draftsman and those of a person who is practising as a solicitor or barrister. I can see that through this Institute a great deal should be achieved, in improving the availability of facilities, provided the opportunities are there for people who may not be graduates in law but who have a bent for drafting and who, in particular, could be attracted to serve one or other of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth so that the number of draftsmen available for drafting changes in present legislation and drafting new legislation can be greater than it is today.

I commend the Bill and I commend the establishment of the Institute. On behalf of the Australian Country Party I would like to say that I believe that this is a very worthwhile step in improving the Parliament’s capacity in a field in which there has been such a grave deficiency for so long.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– It is a pleasure - indeed I am afraid a pleasure which comes to me with diminishing frequency these days - to be able to support without reservations a Bill which the Government has introduced. Indeed, I think I can almost go further than that. I would say that the Opposition, when it was in government, should have moved along lines such as those followed in the introduction of this legislation, and I think that the Government is to be congratulated. I hope that when this Institute is set up - I am now about to make some remarks which I hope will be helpful and which are certainly not meant to be critical in any sense - it will pay sufficient attention to the simplification of the phraseology of the Bills which come into this House. I know that it is important to be precise and that it is a measure of failure in drafting laws when a court either upsets a pre-conceived idea of what a Bill means or finds itself in doubt as to what an Act means. For that reason I know that precision does not always go hand in hand with simplification, but I hope it will not be forgotten.

I notice that the Institute is to help drafting in other countries. I commend that idea, but I think we should all keep in mind that practices outside Australia may not be quite the same as those here. Just as the Westminster style of democracy may not always be the most immediately suitable for all countries, so perhaps the Australian style of drafting may not always be the most suitable system of law in other countries. I am sure that valuable work can be done, but I hope that the differences between Australia and other countries will not be entirely forgotten.

I turn now to the points which concern us particularly as a Commonwealth Parliament. I note with regret - I speak not only of the present Government but ‘also of previous governments - how much the work of this House has been impeded in the past by the fact that there was a bottleneck in drafting. The Bills were not always ready. I do not mean to criticise the staff of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. They have worked tremendously hard but their efforts have sometimes been inadequate to meet the situation because the numbers of trained people has not been sufficient to cope with the inflow of Bills and regulations. This in itself has been a reproach and I feel that over the years we did not do enough to train competent draftsmen. The establishment of this Institute acknowledges the fact that draftsmen are not born; they have to be made, their job is a skilled job and training is necessary. There was always a bottleneck in the Parliamentary Counsel’s office. That bottleneck could never have been cleared immediately because trained people were not available and I think that whatever was offered would have been insufficient to attract them. It may be that salaries were inadequate but there could have been no immediate relief whatever salaries had been offered, because people had to be trained. It is for this reason particularly that I commend the idea behind an institute such as this. However, the situation did improve somewhat in recent years. Mr Tom Hughes was particularly and rightly commended for what he did as Attorney-General to try to break that bottleneck. But action was started too late in the life of the last Government and not enough could be achieved before it went out of office. This next step is one which I think we all should support.

May I make one practical suggestion? One of the ways in which draftsmen could be trained - not necessarily at this Institute but perhaps by way of a kind of postgraduate course conducted by this Institute - is by engaging them on the consolidation of amending Acts. It has been a standing reproach to this Parliament over many years that whenever a Bill is passed that amends a principal Act the consolidation of that Bill and that Act is not immediately available. Very often one finds when one goes to the Bills and Papers Office and asks for an

Act that one gets a sheaf of amending Acts that have never been consolidated. It should be a general rule whenever an amending Act is passed for the consolidated Act to be available within a couple of weeks.

I remember very well when the Hansard report used to come out weeks after the debates took place and how we were told that it would be impossible to get a daily Hansard; yet it has been possible to do so. We now have a daily Hansard which runs automatically, which runs very commendably and which I think honourable members all regard as being essential to the proper discharge of their functions. Let us think back only a few years to the time when we did not have a daily Hansard. I put the parallel position with regard to legislation. We do not have the consolidated Acts when we pass an amending Act through this Parliament. We regard it as being the normal procedure to have to wait a long time to get a consolidated Act yet that is something which should be automatic. If a consolidated Act is not available within a couple of weeks there should be a row.

I know that at present we lack the trained draftsmen for this to be done, but it is not a major drafting exercise. It does require skill. This is where I come to the point I wish to make. It seems to me that we should be taking on, perhaps from this Institute, draftsmen for training first in the mechanical job of consolidating the Acts and of ensuring that the consolidated Acts are available within certainly not more than a couple of weeks. I press this point. I have pressed it upon preceding governments without any success. To me it is a standing reproach to our whole system of parliamentary government that whenever an amending Bill is passed by this House the consolidated Act is not available almost immediately but that one has to wade through piles and piles of papers, to describe them politely, in order to find out what is the law. I have known of instances where in order to understand a Bill that has been introduced into this House I have had to have in front of me the principal Act and three or four amending Acts which have been passed in previous years and have never been consolidated. I think this is something to which, to put it practically, the Government could turn its mind because it would fit in very well as the first postgraduate exercise for those who will come from the elementary training in this Institute and who will later be full parliamentary draftsmen and be responsible for the drafting of, firstly, the regulations and then the Bills that come before this Parliament. I do not intend to detain the House any longer. I support the Bill. I have made one or two suggestions which are not in any way at variance with what the Government has in mind. I believe not only that this Bill is good but also that it is overdue and that is a reproach not so much to this Government as to the governments which have preceded it.

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

– in reply - I shall be brief in my reply. The Government welcomes the support that has been extended to this measure by all honourable members who have spoken in the debate. One or two questions have been asked in the debate. The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) asked where the Institute was likely to be located. It is my understanding that it will be located in Canberra. I appreciate the point he made about the advantages of locating it in another capital city. Considerable thought was given to the degree of association which should exist between such an institute and a university. Indeed, I think someone raised in the debate on this Bill in the other place the question of the Institute’s association with the College of Advanced Education. I know that in the very early discussions which preceded the decision to set up the Institute I was attracted to the idea that a postgraduate section could be attached to the School of Advanced Studies at the Australian National University. The thinking that prevailed was that the relationship and association should be strong but informal.

The subject of lawyers’ law is one that does not often attract very much interest, even in this Parliament, which is a pity. The lack of priority that has been given to reform of lawyers’ law over many years is something for which we have all paid dearly. Anyone who practices in law can well sympathise with and appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) about the difficulty in finding the law and the enormous amount of time that is all too often wasted on doing so. One has to go to the principal Act and search the various amending Acts and the Schedules to them in an attempt to discover it. I often think - indeed, I have said so on numerous occasions - that the cost of a law yer’s services to his clients is often much greater than it need be because of the consolidation problem. As we know, the Government is taking active measures to consolidate the Commonwealth statutes. They have not been consolidated since, I think, 1955. To my way of thinking the situation almost verges on scandalous. We are all guilty in this respect. The statute law revision measures which have been initiated are part of the same process.

We can all sympathise with the problem but the fact is that not many people are attracted to parliamentary drafting work. Various measures have been taken to try to attract people. I think the tribute which was paid to the former honourable member for Berowra, Mr Tom Hughes, is a tribute that was well earned. He set up the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Another significant step forward was taken last year by the present Government when the task of drafting delegated legislation - ordinance and regulations - was given to a special section of the Attorney-General’s Department, thus freeing the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the task of preparing Bills only. It was because of that measure and the dedication of the officers of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that the Government was able to introduce and have enacted a record amount of legislation during 1973. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has on many occasions in my presence paid tribute to Mr Charles Comans, who is the First Parliamentary Counsel, for the quality of the work that he and his fellow officers have turned out. They have worked themselves very hard indeed. I have seen them when their eyes have been bloodshot from working virtually all night on turning out the mass of legislation that the Labor Government managed to introduce and have put through the Parliament last year. So anything that will improve the situation should be sought.

This measure is largely experimental. As the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) said in the Senate, it is just another step forward. A lot will depend on the quality of the men who staff the Institute - the Director and the people he chooses to work with him. It will be related, of course, to the work they can attract from the universities and the assistance that is given to them by officers of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and others. In terms of the different styles that exist at present between the State governments and the Australian Government and in view of the desirability of uniformity, I see this as being a measure to which one can look forward as having a great chance of success.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Id Committee

The Bill.

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

– I refer to clause 11 of the Bill, which reads:

  1. The Director shall be paid remuneration at such rate, and an annual allowance at such rate (if any), as the Parliament fixes, but, until 1 January 1975, the rate of remuneration and the rate (if any) of that allowance shall be as prescribed.
  2. The Director shall be paid such -allowances, other than an annual allowance, as are prescribed.

I move:

This amendment relates to what 1 would suggest is a routine matter, namely, the remuneration of the Director, lt is consequential upon the creation of the Remuneration Tribunal by the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 6.17 to 8 p.m.

page 941

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 March (vide page 550) on motion by Mr Stewart:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– Mr Speaker, may I have the indul gence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974, as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The Bills before the House seek authority for the Commonwealth Development Bank to provide finance for the establishment or development of undertakings involved in the tourist industry and to widen the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission so as to include the promotion of domestic tourism. The Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974 proposes that enterprises engaged in the provision of accommodation or transportation for tourist or other facilities designed to attract tourists will be eligible for assistance by the Commonwealth Development Bank and that particular consideration will be given to small undertakings. The Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1974 proposes that the existing Act be amended to broaden the powers of the Commission beyond its present jurisdiction of encouraging visits from overseas tourists, to include the promotion of travel by Australians in their own country.

The Opposition Parties support both Bills. They are positive and constructive proposals designed to assist an Australian industry which contributes significantly to the quality of life in this country. The House, however, will recall that the proposal to expand the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank into tourism was first outlined in the Liberal Party’s 1972 policy speech. The Opposition Parties are very much aware of the significant contribution which this industry makes to the Australian economy. The travel industry is a significant employer of labour - employing directly at least 10 per cent of the Australian work force, primarily in transportation and accommodation. Because of this industry’s labour intensive nature, its expansion implies increased job opportunities for Australians.

This is particularly true in the case of employment opportunities for women. Women represent 60 per cent of employees in hotels and restaurants compared with approximately onethird of the national work force. The development of tourism in certain areas also could be of real benefit to Aboriginal Australians by creating worthwhile employment opportunities and thereby greater economic independence.

Tourism is an important source of Federal, State and local government revenue, both through direct taxation and through the imposition of excise. In 1971-72 an estimated 24 per cent of total receipts from international visitors was collected in taxation. Revenue earned from domestic tourism, of course, would be considerably higher. The travel industry provides a potentially important source of foreign exchange - a source which should be encouraged in view of the steady diminution of our foreign exchange assets in the latter part of 1973. Tourism, by developing regional areas, can assist in the implementation of policies of decentralisation. For example, in the State of Victoria, Swan Hill, which is rapidly developing into a significant tourist attraction, has increased its. population while the population of comparable centres, has in fact, declined. It also has attracted at least $1.5m in new investment, and new job opportunities for 120 people have been created. In the same way, tourism can be an important source of funds for areas affected by decreasing rural incomes. Isolated areas within Australia often have no viable alternative to tourism apart from limited primary production. Tourism has tremendous potential for growth, particularly in Australia where its expansion is directly related to rapidly increasing leisure time and rising disposable income. Finally, tourism is important to Australians both socially and culturally. It not only provides opportunities for overseas visitors to obtain a closer and better knowledge and understanding of this country but also assists Australians to establish and strengthen their sense of a developing national identity.

Tourism does not deplete natural resources and, properly administered, can reinforce the desirability and importance of conservation in Australia. This applies in many respects to my own electorate of Flinders which as honourable members from both sides of the House I am certain will recognise, includes Phillip Island. In a report released in 1965 by Harris, Kerr, Forster and Co. and Stanton Robbins and Co., Phillip Island was referred to as one of the most important tourist attractions not simply in Victoria but throughout the nation. That report said that Phillip Island was unique as an area where people are able to observe the breeding cycle of penguins - in this case, the small .fairy penguins. Phillip Island is also a nesting place for tens of thousands of shearwaters, a natural habitat for koalas, a breeding ground for seals and an attractive resort area with magnificent beaches. These, I might say without fear of contradiction, are tourist attractions which bring hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. The report described Phillip Island’s tourist potential in the following terms:

We believe that Phillip Island could be one of the outstanding tourist destinations in Australia. Phillip Island deserves comprehensive planning. Particular emphasis should be given to its importance as a tourist destination, while preserving to the maximum extent pastoral areas and fishing villages.

The Committee of Management of the Phillip Island Tourist Bureau so very capably headed by its chairman, Councillor Vernon Johnson, and its honorary secretary, Councillor A. P. Reynolds - is especially aware of the need to educate Australians to the Island’s unique attractions. It is actively seeking the establishment of a tourist information and education bureau on the Island. I go on record as completely supporting its proposal. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) will recall the sustained representations I have made to him on the Committee’s behalf. It is a matter of regret that the Government so far has failed to put forward any definite plans in support of this proposal. I trust that the Government, in its program to assist the tourist industry, will provide the necessary funds for the Phillip Island centre, having regard to the uniqueness of Phillip Island as one of Australia’s outstanding tourist attractions.

Notwithstanding the advantages of tourist development, Australia has not maintained its share in the growth of the world travel industry. Our share of New Zealand, Japanese and United States departures has declined in comparison to the share obtained by competitive destinations. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has quoted figures which show that Australia is in a deteriorating position as far as the accumulation of foreign exchange through tourism is concerned. In the 12 months to December 1973, it has been estimated that about 319,000 short term visitors came to Australia and short departures amounted to 460,000. In money terms, in the same period, receipts amounted to SI 39m and spendings by Australians travelling overseas as short term visitors were $359m - a staggering gap of $220m, and an increase of 25 per cent over the previous year. Clearly the figures speak for themselves. Australia is losing out in the competition to attract tourists - and all the benefits to the Australian economy that this directly entails. In order to benefit from international tourism, Australia must become more competitive with other destinations in the Pacific and, indeed, with most other countries, some of which are heavily subsidising their tourist industries.

It is true, of course, that the Australian industry must deal with special problems. The isolation of such tourist attractions as the Outback, the Centre and the Great Barrier Reef requires exceptionally high development costs and substantial expenditure on the provision of facilities which would already be provided in more developed areas. Distances which must be travelled and the remoteness of the continent itself involve high transportation costs within and to Australia. The accommodation industry in Australia, in particular, is penalised by high land prices especially in city areas. Construction costs in Australia are much higher than other countries when they are related to the capacity to earn income. And, as the industry is labour intensive, there are obvious competitive difficulties with countries where labour costs are much lower. The industry is vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy because, as it is to a large extent a luxury industry, it is generally one of the first industries affected by an economic downturn. As travel operators exist on very low margins, any fall off in demand has a damaging effect.

The industry views its major problem as the lack of adequate financing. A survey conducted by Harris, Kerr, Forster and Company, released in 1969, entitled Tourism Plan for Central Australia’ found that hotel, motel and lodge operators agreed almost unanimously this was their major problem. The Department of Tourism and Recreation’s study, ‘Development of Tourism in Australia’, quotes a survey conducted by consultants, Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co., in 1972. This survey found that expansion-oriented firms found great difficulty in obtaining funds. Sixty per cent of the firms surveyed in the travel industry were either unsuccessful in obtaining funds for improvement and expansion or had considerable difficulty in doing so. In 1972, the average interest paid by 37 companies was 9.2 per cent and many were forced into higher interest commitments on new or marginal borrowings while, in other cases, projects were postponed or abandoned.

For these reasons we support now, as we did in our 1972 policy proposals, the Government’s Bill to extend the function of the Commonwealth Development Bank to lend to those firms engaged in the travel industry. I recall that this was one of the first proposals which I supported strongly in this Parliament when I first came into the House after the 1966 Federal elections. The Commonwealth Bank already provides funds for purposes of primary production and for the establishment and development of industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings. The extension of its facilities to cover the tourist industry is particularly appropriate, especially as it is geared to small enterprises.

The provision of finance to assist the tourist industry will be subject to the same statutory provisions as those applicable to the Bank’s existing operations. The Bank’s special criteria for assessing eligibility for a loan - i.e. the requirements that the Bank should be satisfied that finance would not be otherwise available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions and that attention be paid not so much to the security that is available but rather to the prospects for success of the proposed venture - is particuarly relevant to travel operators. Many tourist proposals involve a substantial risk element and are often conducted by relatively small operators which by their very nature are not considered good credit risks. However, it must be noted that, in the future, it may be necessary to make increase^ funds available to the Bank for its lending purposes. There is a danger that its existing areas of operation will suffer if it is forced to spread the available funds too thinly.

The Opposition parties support the proposals to enlarge the role of the Australian Tourist Commission to include the promotion of domestic tourism because we recognise and believe that the Commission ought to utilise its outstanding expertise in encouraging more Australians to travel within their country. We agree with the Government that it is disturbing that Australian tourists overseas are spending far more overseas than is spent by overseas visitors in Australia. This travel gap has increased from $52m in 1968 to $220m in 1973. Although there is no substantial balance of payments problem at present we recognise that there is a need to correct this imbalance. This is particularly important as our holdings of foreign exchange, of which tourism is a potentially important source, have been steadily falling for some months. In January our holdings of gold and foreign reserves were more than 20 per cent lower than in January 1973, and over 6 per cent lower than they were just 3 months ago.

When the former Government established the Australian Tourist Commission it believed that an official Commonwealth instrumentality, with legislative backing, would confer the status and authority needed to provide effective and positive leadership to the tourist industry in the promotion of Australia overseas. The Commission since then has served a very worthwhile and useful function in its promotion of Australian tourism overseas. The Commission has built up considerable expertise in the promotion of Australia as a tourist attraction. Therefore, the proposal to ultilise this expertise for the purpose of promoting Australia to Australians can be seen only as a constructive and worthwhile measure, especially in view of the need to reduce the travel gap. The Department of Tourism and Recreation’s report on the ‘Development of Tourism in Australia’ released in 1973 referred to the relative importance of domestic tourism on the following terms:

Domestic tourism provides the bread and butter for the industry. While there is little reliable data on the travel movements of the Australian population either in terms of travel patterns or volume of movement between States or within a State, studies have revealed that overseas visitors form a very small proportion of total visitor traffic, for example: of an estimated 2 million visitors to Queensland in 1969-70, only 6 per cent came from overseas; the 12,000 overseas visitors to the Northern Territory in 1971 formed just over 10 per cent of total visitors in that year.

Considering the relative importance of the two types of Australian tourist we support the Government’s proposal to increase its promotion of domestic tourism. The proposal to increase the number of members on the Commission from seven to nine should enable the Commission to cope more effectively with the new area of its operation, and the proposal to make all the members voting members should enable the Commission to work in closer harmony.

The Opposition parties also support the proposals to bring into line with the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 the provisions in the Commonwealth Bank Act relating to the determination of the remuneration payable to members of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board and the various statutory office holders under the Act. We support this move as it would appear to introduce some standardisation into the determination of such remuneration and it would therefore make it easier to determine the adequacy of any particular remuneration. Whilst the Opposition parties endorse the Bills which are now before the House as positive and constructive measures designed to assist the tourist industry, we believe they must be balanced against moves by the Government which have been positively detrimental to the industry at large.

Mr Sherry:

– I thought you would never get around to it.

Mr LYNCH:

– I am glad that my colleague on the other side of the House recognises the disabilities which this Government has caused to this very important industry. In view of the high capital costs which the Australian industry must support in order to develop, the Government’s removal of taxation deductions for depreciation on new income-producing buildings was, of course, a severe set-back for the industry. That concession represented a valuable assistance to the industry by easing the burden of heavy capital costs and allowing firms to retain in their businesses funds which could be accumulated for expansion. The concession recognised the size of capital expenditure incurred in relation to a total annual turnover.

The Government’s budget measure which increased taxation for private companies to public company levels will also have a detrimental effect on the tourism industry. As the Government must be aware, many tourism operations are conducted by small firms and individual entrepreneurs, a significant number of which are established under a private company structure. Therefore, the substantial increase in private company taxation, which in some cases would have been as high as 27 per cent, has significantly reduced their capacity to accumulate capital for expansion. This was a particularly severe measure since private companies are still liable for undistributed profits tax. The industry has been adversely affected by the Government’s policy of high interest rates. The excessively high interest rate structure has caused major problems for small firms seeking borrowed funds for expansion.

I can see from the sense of concern which is mirrored in the faces of the advisers who are sitting in the gallery in the House that they recognise the very serious problems which the Government has created for this industry in the Budget context and in terms of the policy decisions which have been brought down. The former Government adopted a number of positive measures to assist the tourist industry, including the establishment of the Australian Tourist Commission. In Government we initiated a program of $1 for$1 grants to the States for the development of a wide variety of tourist attractions, such as Australiana and pioneer settlements, the preservation of historic sites and buildings, fauna sanctuaries and other projects considered to have particular appeal to overseas visitors. The former Government also initiated the conservation and tourist development proposals for the Ayers Rock area now being adopted by the present Government.

The Opposition supports the proposals before the House as measures which will directly and positively assist tourism in Australia. The promotion of domestic tourism through the Australian Tourist Commission is a constructive move, as is the proposal to provide finance to the industry through the Commonwealth Development Bank. The Opposition parties have much pleasure in supporting the Bills before the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It gives me great pleasure to join in this debate, especially after such a competent speaker as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). But competent speaker that he may be, it is unfortunate that he does not always abide by the facts.

Mr Lynch:

– Do not tell a lie about me and 1 will not tell the truth about you.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may tell the truth about me anytime he pleases.

Mr Riordan:

– He will not do so; that is the problem.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is quite infrequent that he tells the truth but if he cares to tell it about me he may.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am sitting up here in the chair. Will you address me?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I was distracted by other people. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about serious concern mirrored in the faces of the Government’s advisers. For his information I was watching their faces very carefully. They are very imperturbable people. They gave no response to show whether or not they were concerned and in fact I think that would be true in respect of the Australian community generally. They do not show any concern one way or the other as to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying about this, that or the other.

The purpose of the Australian Tourist Commission Bill is, as outlined by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), to broaden the scope of the Australian Tourist Commission to enable it not only to engage in encouraging people from overseas to travel to Australia and within Australia but also to remove the straitj acket which bound it to deal only with people who are not Australians. When this Bill is enacted it will enable the Commission to work harmoniously in conjunction with the travel and tourist bureaus of the various States and the private enterprise organisations engaged in domestic transport and tourist promotion within Australia. The Minister has already told the House that Australians on short term visits overseas spend in other countries about $359m a year whereas those short term visitors which we attract to Australia spend only $ 139m a year here. If our national trading account were conducted on this basis we would very quickly have a gigantic deficit and uproar would prevail in the business community.

My own knowledge and personal experience is that there is an almost insatiable desire on the part of Australians to visit countries overseas. The isolation of the Australian continent and the relative remoteness of even our nearest overseas neighbours, plus the exotic atmosphere conjured up by travel brochures, leave those Australians who can afford it anxious to board a ship or a plane and visit areas overseas. The solution now is easier than it has been in the past because of the ready availability of means of travel. I suppose the desire of Australians to travel overseas is historical plus the fact that many of our new residents were born overseas and they no doubt have a desire to return to the country of their birth and visit relatives and friends who are now far away. As one who has had the opportunity to travel widely in Australia and to have visited other countries, I have no doubt that Australia should be seen by Australians before visiting other places. I say that purely on the basis of the many geographical and therefore natural beauties of the continent, the bustle of the cities, the wide expanses of the finest beaches in the world, the unique flora and fauna, the deserts and semi-arid areas and for contrast the wonderland of the coastal areas with the ever-changing panorama of bays, coves, rivers and cliffs.

The habits of people are hard to change. I wonder how many temporarily departing Australians would be persuaded not to leave but to stay and spend the rest of their vacation in Australia. I believe that very few could be persuaded because their motives are not readily available. A person born overseas must travel overseas to visit relatives and friends. A person who has visited places of interest in Australia and still wishes to travel must travel overseas. There are probably some Australians who travel overseas because the lure of travel brochures from overseas is stronger than the lure of local travel brochures. The obvious solution to this vexed question is to introduce a more co-ordinated approach. This Bill, when enacted, will provide just that co-ordination. A greater appeal must be made to Australians to, if I may coin a phrase, see Australia first. If successful this would reduce the outflow of Australian money to overseas countries. A corollary, of course, would be a more vigorous approach to attract people from overseas to leave their money in Australia.

I have always been astounded at the curious attitude adopted by exponents of the so-called free enterprise system when, under great public pressure, they established a government operation - in this case to promote tourism - and then neatly handcuffed it so that it was incapable of fully performing the task for which it was established. The Australian Tourist Commission is the case in point. Having established it in 1967 because of a recognition of the need for a central organising agency, the government of the day ensured that it was a tourist commission in name only and would provide no real threat to the private sector of the tourist industry. Unfortunately this narrow, doctrinaire attitude is self-defeating and contradictory. If the tourism industry is to blossom and develop upon rational and therefore economically sound lines, each constituent part of the industry must know where it is going, and, indeed, so must the customers. People who travel are vulnerable to being abandoned in strange places and rely entirely on the integrity, the substance and the reliability of those who organise their tours. It is pleasing to know that this Government attaches great importance to the tourist industry. So much so, in fact, that a portfolio has been established and a Minister is responsible for tourism and recreation.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) spoke at some length about the attraction of Phillip Island in his own electorate. He spoke of the fairy penguins there. In my own electorate I have no fairy penguins, being so far from the sea. But there are many attractions in Australia which are attractive not only to Australians, who unfortunately do not seem to take the opportunity to visit these places - principally I think because they are not promoted to the extent to which they should be, such as the Great Barrier Reef. Relying on my own experience, having seen coral reefs in other parts of the world and having seen parts of the Great Barrier Reef, I can assure the honourable members of this House that no attraction anywhere in the world is as fine, as attractive or as natural as the Australian Great Barrier Reef. It is spoken of around the world, but how many people go to see it? I think that I might have mentioned at an earlier time that whilst visiting the holiday resort of the Hawaiian Islands recently I spoke to some people there who had travelled the 5,000 miles from the American mainland to visit those islands as a resort. They had neither heard of Australia nor cared very much about it anyhow. That to me is something of a tragedy. It is a situation that should not be allowed to continue by those of us who believe in the greatness of the Australian continent, who believe in the attractions of the natural climate and the endearments of Australia. We should be showing them to the rest of the world. We should be attracting tourists to Australia.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went to great lengths to talk about accommodation in Australia. I know that he has travelled outside Australia many times. I believe and presume that he has travelled widely within Australia. If that is so, he would know that accommodation in Australia is comparable with accommodation anywhere else in the world.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You have to be joking about that one. You have really got to be joking, and I say that with respect.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am glad that you do because I do not know where the honourable member lives when he is away from home or what sort of a home he occupies when he is there. But I occupy quite a humble home and I have never found accommodation in Australia that I would regard as sub-standard. Recently, visiting the outback town of Tennant Creek I found accommodaton there which was comparable with any accommodation in any capital city in Australia - and if you can find any place more remote from the capital cities than Tennant Creek I’ll go he. So the honourable member obviously speaks with his fingers in his ears, as he generally does. The accommodation in Australia is not to be downgraded. It is the attitude of people like the honourable member that brings about the tendency of Australians to downgrade their own nation. I say to the honourable members of this House and to people in Australia: ‘Do not downgrade our nation. Be proud of it. Be proud of being Australian and extol Australia’s virtues rather than try to write them down.’

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member has just delivered a blast which completely misconstrues my interjection, which was based more on a comparison between accommodation overseas and in Australia. He is twisting the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! All interjections should be treated as disorderly. The honourable member should not have interjected at all.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am grateful for your protection, Mr Speaker. I badly need it. I shall twist something other than the truth if I get near enough to the honourable member. The way in which this Bill has been dealt with by the Opposition so far I think has been commendable, except that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition could not resist the opportunity to have some sort of a shot at the Government about some sort of alleged failings on the part of the Government to promote the industry. The honourable gentleman probably has very many important things to do and he is away doing some of them now. But I trust that he is listening to what is being said and that he will understand that the matter that he introduced in the latter part of his speech in this House on the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1973 was not altogether truthful and did not entirely reflect the attitude of the Government towards this very important industry.

I think the very action of the Government in introducing this Bill indicates how important the Australian Government considers this industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about fiscal policies of the Government that he alleged were doing a disservice to the Australian tourist industry. With the greatest respect to all those involved it has been my experience that tourists are never niggardly about paying what they are asked to pay. As I can understand the situation, having travelled not only in Australia but also in other countries, the cost of travel in Australia, considering the difficulties involved, is not expensive. The cost of accommodation, considering the standard, is not expensive either by world standards. One would find accommodation of a lower standard at a higher price overseas, and the cost of transport is approximately the same as overseas. So there is no valid argument to put forward that economics is a reason for the non-attraction of people to travel to Australia or within Australia. It is clearly and simply a lack of promotion, the leaving of this matter in the hands of the so-called private enterprise sector which is in fact in competition with itself and determined to get a share of the market for itself and never interested in coming together and promoting the common cause, the promotion of the Australian tourist industry.

The broadening of the Australian Tourist Commission will enable it to engage in domestic travel and tourism as well as tourism from overseas. No longer does the situation prevail where people with pure self-interest at heart engage in tourism, but rather is there an organisation answerable to a Minister of the Crown responsible, capable and willing to promote all of the things about Australia which we want people to see. Not only is it important to bring people from overseas to see them; I think it is even more important that people from our own country be encouraged to travel within Australia on the domestic airlines, railways or road lines rather than being encouraged to go overseas. Every dollar that leaves this country in the pocket of a tourist is a dollar that is lost to Australia and a dollar that is going to somebody else.

I come back to my earlier point of the deficit that exists between the spending of Australians overseas and the income available to Australia from tourists who come here. If a deficit situation were to exist in a rural industry - for example, were we buying more wool than we were selling - I am sure that there are people in this House as well as across the country who would raise very strong arguments as to why that situation should not continue. But, because the tourist industry is not regarded as being of the same substance as rural industries concerned with the buying and selling of wool and wheat, that industry does not seem to receive the same sort of attention. In fact, a discussion of the deficit situation in the tourist industry seems to be treated with some sort of levity in this chamber.

It is of great importance that the amount of more than $200m a year is drifting away from this country and going into the pockets of people overseas. If those who sit on the opposite side of the House claim that they are the managers of this country, that they are the business people and that they know what business is all about - I freely confess that I do not - then I am surprised that they have not taken stronger action about this matter before now. This legislation was commissioned in 1967 and it was not until that very great day, 2 December 1972, that a very great change took place in this country and for the first time in 23 years the country found itself with a government that was willing to govern, prepared to goyern and determined to govern and some sort of leadership was shown to the community. Had it not been for that day - I am sure that all Australians are grateful for it - the situation that existed over the 12 months prior to that day and for the years preceding that period would have continued, would have been compounded and would have escalated. Instead of the gap being only $200m a year, it would have been in fact doubled, trebled, quadrupled or even worse.

I am pleased to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there is no opposition to this legislation. Bearing this in mind, I am rather astounded that about 7 honourable members on the other side of the House have listed themselves to speak on this legislation. It will be rather pleasing to hear what they have to say and how they are all going to support the legislation. As one who not only has travelled in the past but also intends to travel in the future, I trust that the opportunity will arise at a later stage for me once again to speak on tourism in the House. Perhaps at that time I can give a travelogue with accompanying colour slides. For the time being, I commend the Bills to the House. I do not think there is any need to do that with any vim, vigour or fire. I do not think there is any real opposition to the legislation and there ought not be lengthy debate on it. I think that most of the things that need to be said have been said. I am sure that if anything has been left out it will be covered by later speakers.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Bills before the House - the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Commonwealth Banks Bill - have the support of the Opposition parties. Before I make some general comments on them, let me say that the honourable member for Bourke (Mr Keith Johnson) stimulated me to make one or two observations. Apparently he is under the false impression that simply the creation of a new portfolio and the introduction of new legislation is sufficient in itself. During the 16 months that I have been here I have said consistently that the test of time will be needed to see what the Labor Government is able to achieve in the tourist industry. The honourable member for Burke also made some derogatory statements - I think that derogatory’ is the right word - about the role of private enterprise in the tourist industry. Private enterprise has developed the tourist industry of this country almost on its own. To suggest that private enterprise operators have been concerned only with the earning of profits is to give an utterly false picture, because industry generally has contributed immensely to the development of the tourist industry.

My friend the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) made a comment about the standard of accommodation within Australia. There is no doubt that in some sections of Australia there is a lower standard of accommodation than is required: There is no doubt that if this nation is to develop a real value in the overseas earnings of income from tourism we will have to update our facilities. It is unrealistic to suggest that we have in this country facilities that will compare with facilities, not even in America and Japan which have buoyant economies, but in countries such as the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia. Honourable members should have a look at the wonderful new hotels that have been developed for the tourist industry in Kuala Lumpur. It is wonderful to see the development going on there. Indonesia, which is not a terribly wealthy country, has realised and appreciated the significance of the tourist industry. So 1 suggest to the honourable member for Burke that he update his knowledge of this aspect of the tourist industry.

It is true that it was not until recent years that the Liberal-Country Party Government started to appreciate the significance of the tourist industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) indicated actions that were taken. He indicated the content of the 1972 policy speech of the Liberal Party. The Commonwealth Banks Bill will implement exactly what was set out in that policy speech. For years one of the prime requirements of the tourist industry has been access to longterm developmental loans. Such loans are tremendously desirable and it is a scheme that we would have implemented ourselves.

The Australian Tourist Commission Bill is designed to allow the Australian Tourist Commission not just to concentrate on the promotion of overseas travel but to be responsible for the promotion of travel within Australia both by Australians and by those visiting the country. The Bill proposes to increase the membership of the Commission from seven to nine and to give the 2 non-voting members the right to vote. That proposal looks good and I hope that it is successful. But just increasing the number of people on the Commission and giving them a vote does not necessarily make the Commission more effective. I will ‘be interested to see what sort of people are appointed. I hope that a correct balance is maintained between people appointed from the Government or the Public Service and those appointed from within the industry, because if the Commission is to do its job really effectively it has to have as part of its membership representatives from the tourist industry -those people who are involved with the industry itself. So the choice of members of the Commission, particularly the new members proposed by this legislation, becomes significant.

Of course we are concerned about the growing gap betwen debits and credits - that is, money spent by Australians going overseas and money spent by people coming into Australia. The debit in 1968 was $52m and the estimated debit 5 years later, in 1973, is $220m. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) said in his second reading speech that the situation is serious. Although we have not a balance of payments problem now, I suggest that the way this Government is spending money it will not be too long before we do have one. The Minister’s comments are pertinent. I think that he is right; the situation is pretty serious. We do not want to reduce, and the Government does not want to reduce, spending by Australians overseas. We think it is desirable for Australians to go outside this country, because of the social, national and international benefits that arise to ourselves and other countries.

I do not suggest that the solution is easy; of course it is not. We have a country which has a real degree of remoteness. But we have very substantial markets nearby. I invite the Government to look at the immense market that the Japanese are creating in the tourist industry. It is extraordinary to see the tens of thousands of Japanese moving around South East Asia week by week.

Mr Graham:

– Not Australia.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– As my colleague mentions, they are not coming to Australia. We are not getting the right share. The trends indicate only too well that we are getting a diminishing share of tourists from our near neighbours. What has to be shown is a little courage and determination when we are making agreements with overseas countries, whether they be airline agreements on air fares or any other agreements. We have to start to stand up for our rights. We have to be quite sure that we are not entering into agreements which disadvantage this country. That will require a great deal of strength. It will notbe solved just by bringing in a piece of legislation and giving extra responsibility to a commission.

If the Government is really serious and genuine about developing a tourist industry it should have a look at the enormous costs that will be incurred. It must have the courage to look at the tremendous fuel tax bill and airport bills right throughout this country. Up until now the Australian National Travel Association has done a good job. I said that Opposition members welcome these measures. We think they are a good idea. We will be happy to co-operate with the Commission for the benefit of the industry and the nation. I hope that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation sticks to his words. At least the Minister has shown a desire to work with State governments and local authorities. Very few of his colleagues have demonstrated that same ability. It is to his credit, because if the Commission is to work there must be real co-operation with State governments; with local authorities, particularly in the provincial cities which have major tourist attractions - that is significantly where the tourist attractions in Australia are; with the industry committees; with the operators; and of course with private enterprise because it is private enterprise that has generated the real wealth in the tourist industry and the real wealth throughout the nation. I repeat that the legislation in itself will not solve the problems. It is what will follow that will be of real significance.

Let me make one or 2 comments about my own electorate. The Gold Coast has developed because successive Liberal-Country Party governments have at least set the economic climate under which private enterprise has been able to prosper. Let me indicate to the Government that if it wants to come to the Gold Coast in my electorate and wants to show the spirit of co-operation that I have suggested, it will receive co-operation. It will receive it first of all from the Liberal Minister for Tourism, Mr Herbert,- in the CountryLiberal Party Government in Queensland. I think he has already indicated his attitude on this subject. The Government will certainly receive co-operation from the mayor of the Gold Coast, Mayor Robert Neumann, who is friendly towards this Government. It will certainly receive it from the tourist operators within the city. I was very pleased to hear that the other day the mayor, on behalf of the city, announced a substantial national literary award of some $3,000. The industry needs substantial stimulus in many directions. The Government will need flexibility to negotiate with the industry for the extension of package tours - which have added enormously to the growth of tourism within this country - into areas which, for one reason or another, need some extra promotional effort.

If facilities are to be maintained in an up to date condition and if there is to be real development in the industry the Government must look at tax deductibility for depreciation purposes of income producing buildings. It is not possible to sustain the long term growth of the tourist industry unless tourist facilities and accommodation amenities are constantly and consistently maintained and improved. The Minister has said that the Government will consider this aspect. I hope that that is one facet of the 1972 Liberal policy speech which this Government will seek to implement. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting these Bills. I hope that what flows from them will be of benefit. There is no doubt that this is an industry which is labour intensive. It has very valuable employment opportunities. It is one of the industries in which we find real decentralisation - not just one or 2 grand growth centres throughout the country, but real decentralisation. Tourist attractions are found not only on the coastal strips, not only on the Barrier Reef and the Gold Coast, but also in the inland areas of Australia. Many small rural communities have the potential for tourist development which can be of very real benefit. Other countries have demonstrated the significance of a tourist industry in earning overseas currency. In some countries tourism is the major earner of other currencies. As I said, we do not have that problem in this country today. It may well be that the tourist industry, if its potential is developed in the way that I have Indicated, can make a significant contribution. I hope that as the years go by our potential in Australia will be harnessed. The nation, the industry and everybody associated with it will earn the benefits and the rewards that will flow from it.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I do not wish to speak for a long time on these Bills. I made a number of speeches in the previous Parliament on the subject of tourism. It seems that tonight we have a measure of agreement between both sides of the House on the direction in which the industry should go and there is an approval of the Government’s Bills. I was interested to hear the comments of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) because one of the things that have concerned me over the past few years is the view that the way in which we will encourage tourism in Australia is by spending a lot of money overseas in bringing people to this country. What we have to do is examine the reasons why people travel. I take the view that Australia is not attracting people because we are concentrating on only 2 aspects of tourism. We assume that if we provide good facilities for people - by that I mean accommodation - and if we have beautiful scenery we will be absolutely inundated with tourists. I doubt that very much, although I believe that scenery in parts of Australia is equal to any in the world.

Today the standard of accommodation in most of the major cities and the major countries of the world is pretty much the same. If one takes hotels like the Wentworth, the Chevron, the Hilton or Sheraton hotels around the world one finds that there is not a great deal of difference between them. The degree of quality does not vary a great deal. ‘I doubt very much whether a massive increase in quantity of facilities will make a great deal of difference to tourism. I do not think that scenery alone is sufficient. What I think attracts people to a country is what there is to do and see. Not so long ago I was fortunate enough to visit the very small country of Israel which is 250 miles from one end to the other. There is such a wide diversity of cultures, such a wide diversity of people and such a wide range of history, architecture, economics and industry that one can simply walk along any block and see a tremendous range of things that one cannot see in a country such as Australia.

What we need to do is to concentrate on building attractions that people can visit, such as the Opera House in Sydney. No doubt there are plenty of other places throughout Australia that are similar. I do not want to make a parochial speech but I am very fortunate that in my electorate of Robertson there is a $9m project now being undertaken to recreate Old Sydney Cove. It is a massive project which the proprietors have undertaken.

Mr Graham:

– Private enterprise, though.

Mr COHEN:

– Yes. The honourable member may be surprised by some announcement that will be made shortly, lt is a private enterprise scheme. I am not opposed to private enterprise.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In what part of your electorate is this?

Mr COHEN:

– In Somersby, just south of Gosford. It will recreate Old Sydney Cove as it was in circa 1810. The developers spent some 12 years looking for a site that was an exact copy of Sydney Cove with the Tank Stream. It is quite spooky, if I may use the term, to see how similarly it represents the early pictures of old Sydney Town. They will recreate that early period with Government House, the convict buildings, the officers mess, taverns, inns, the Customs House and Bennelong’s hut. A huge harbour will be built there on the site of an old dam and a tank stream will come down into it. It will become one of the major tourist attractions of the area. People will come to the area not because it has beauti ful scenery, which it has, but because there is something to do there, just as the safari lion parks, the reptile parks, zoos, the Opera House and so on attract people. I believe that that is what we need to spend our money on in order to create what may be called ‘stock’ things for people to do, see and visit. That is what we ought to be pouring our money into. I am a little disappointed in the Government in the sense that I would like to see it do more. However, I have some sympathy for the sort oi problems the Government is facing because if we were to encourage an excessive amount of building at the moment with the present housing difficulties which exist, we would be creating problems in another direction. I would hope that in the future when the building pressures ease in our community we will devote more money towards providing the sort of stock that would become tourist attraction facilities in the future.

I heard some mention made recently by, I think, the honourable member for Bourke (Mr Keith Johnson) of the Great Barrier Reef. He said that the Barrier Reef was one of our great attractions. I can assure people that I would agree with that view but I think we must start to look at the sort of facilities that are available on the Barrier Reef. I made the mistake about 2 years ago of going to the Barrier Reef during summer time. I arrived there the day after Cyclone Althea had virtually wiped out Townsville. It was about 85 degrees and raining and I was shown to a weatherboard shack which had none of the basic facilities that one expects today in any sort of modern motel. It had a tiled floor.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Were you by yourself?

Mr COHEN:

– No. I had my wife and 3 children with me and I was paying, I think, S35 a night. There was no refrigeration, no air conditioning and no Muzak. We were in a weatherboard shack with the 3 children’s beds stuck alongside each other. They had to jump from one to the other to get into their beds - at $35 a night! I think that if I wanted to feed them at the motel restaurant it would have been about an additional $20 to $25 a day. This was 2 years ago. Costs are a lot less now. So, for $50 a night we were living in the place I have described to honourable members. The temperature rose to 107 degrees Fahrenheit after we had been there about 2 days and the humidity was about 98 per cent. I reached the stage where I was running around hiding under bushes to get away from the heat. When I approached the manager of the motel and said: ‘I am dying. What are you going to do? Let me out of the place!’ He said: ‘This heat is marvellous for you. It is good for your health. Do not worry about air conditioning. That is unhealthy.’ In the meantime, I was almost prostrate from the heat.

Where in the world would one go where there was a temperature of 107 degrees and find such accommodation? It was like that for 7 days. We could not go out in the sun but we could not stay in the hut because it was 120 degrees in the hut. This is the sort of facility we are offering to international tourists. Australians can travel to Fiji, New Guinea and places like that. If we are to show people the great beauty of the Barrier Reef we must provide accommodation that is equivalent to international standards. 1 stayed only on Dunk Island. On top of all that, on New Year’s Eve in the flat next to us there was an attempted rape. So, I was called out in the middle of the night. A policeman came around and the following morning I gave evidence. He said: ‘You do not mind coming back in a couple of weeks time to the court case, do you?’ So, not only did I have a very unpleasant 2 weeks there but I also had to go back there a couple of weeks later to give evidence at the court case. That was one of the disasters I call a Christmas holiday. This is a serious problem. We can laugh and joke about it, but the Great Barrier Reef is considered to be one of our great tourist attractions.

Mr Duthie:

– It is 1,000 miles long, is it not?

Mr COHEN:

– What?

Mr Duthie:

– The Great Barrier Reef.

Mr COHEN:

– I wondered what the honourable member was talking about. I visited only one short section of it which was Dunk Island. But it really would be a great place if adequate facilities could be provided. 1 talked to the former owner of the island who unfortunately has passed away, a very interesting man, Mr Eric Mclllree. He pointed out the difficulties of providing proper facilities at a place like Dunk Island. Firstly, it costs about 3 times the capital investment to transport material to the island to build the facilities. Running costs are a great deal more than elsewhere because one must bring workers over to the island and provide them with accommodation. One has to pay them about double what it would cost to secure the services of someone on the mainland. Then, it is necessary to fly in fresh fruit and food. It cannot be brought on rail runs or regular transport runs. It must be flown or shipped in. So, if we are to develop places like the Great Barrier Reef, Ayers Rock and other off the beaten track places we must use the basic principles that are used, I understand, in countries such as Ireland and New Zealand. If we are to develop outback facilities, special provisions must be made for private enterprise. I do not think across the board incentives, subsidies or loans should be provided. We should be very selective about whom we assist. We should not be developing the inner city areas. I notice that a number of the very big motel-hotel organisations pick only the prime places to develop. They do not go out and pioneer and I think that the provision by the Government of any sort of across the board depreciation allowances, taxation incentives or whatever they may be is basically wrong. What we ought to do is scale the incentives to the degree of difficulty in providing accommodation at a particular place and I hope that in future years when we seek to increase growth in the tourist trade we shall follow this pattern.

Mr Graham:

– Will you tell us about the growth in tourism in the last 10 years in the area you represent? lt has been enormous, has it not?

Mr COHEN:

– Yes. The growth of tourism in my area has been enormous but I do not know that it is all due simply to visitors. A lot of it has been caused by a growth in the number of commuters - people who have come to live in the area. However, there has been a massive increase in tourism. My area of Gosford-Wyong has received almost all the tourist growth with which it can possibly cope because it is so close to a city. It is about 1± hours run from Sydney and about 40 minutes run from Newcastle. However, we are establishing the sort of facilities to attract tourism such as Old Sydney Town project and the reptile park. We have the natural resources and the beaches and I have no fears for the tourist industry there.

Mr O’Keefe:

– They are the best beaches in the world.

Mr COHEN:

– I thank the honourable member for Patterson for his kind remarks about my electorate. He said that it has the best beaches in the world and I would agree with that. If I might say so, it also has some of the best scenery. However, I did not want to make a parochial speech. I wanted to speak on behalf of the tourist industry as a whole. I would be delighted to see an increase in the facilities provided at places like the Great Barrier Reef, the outback, Alice Springs and Tasmania. We could put forward an argument for Tasmania on the ground that probably the greatest asset it has is its scenery, its attractions and its natural beauty. And it needs it because it lacks some of the facilities that other sections of our society have.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How about the Riverina? Do you think there are attractions in the Riverina?

Mr COHEN:

– One of the attractions of the Riverina is that I was born and brought up there. Apart from that, of course, it is represented by my dear friend and colleague, the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), a very sober, quietly dressed young man. I doubt very much whether the Riverina needs any assistance these days when it has such a good publicist in its Federal member.

I think we have to be serious about this matter. Not every area in Australia will be a great attraction for international tourists. As much as we all want to say that this is God’s little acre, it is not. Not every place is 100 per cent. We must have an order of priorities. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has in his electorate the Barossa Valley, which I have not had the pleasure of visiting. I am told that it is one of the great areas of Australia to visit. But there are many others. We need an order of priorities. We cannot develop all potential tourist areas but I think we should concentrate on the 10 or 15 most attractive and adopt the approach that I have outlined this evening.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the Australian Tourist Commission Bill, which of course is a Bill to widen the powers of the Australian Tourist Commission to enable it to promote domestic tourism in Australia. Section 15 of the Principal Act is to be repealed. This section at present reads:

The Commission is established for the purpose of the encouragement of visits to Australia, and travel in Australia by people from other countries.

Under the proposed amendment in the Bill, which the Australian Country Party supports, section 15 will read:

The Commission is established for the purpose of the encouragement

of visits to Australia, by people from other countries, and

of travel in Australia, including travel by people from other countries.

Similarly, the Bill provides that section 16, paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) be amended to read: to induce and assist travel agents, transport operators and other appropriate bodies or persons to encourage people in other countries to visit Australia and to encourage travel in Australia including travel by people from other countries.

No doubt the Australian people must be very concerned to learn that for the year ended 31 December last approximately 319,000 short term visitors came to Australia, and the short term departures for overseas amounted to approximately 460,000. This of course, poses a problem in respect to loss of exchange. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) has already stated that the receipts from overseas visitors for this period amounted to $139m, while spending by Australians overseas amounted to $359m - a gap of $220m and an increase of 25 per cent over the previous year. This certainly gives us concern, because in the interests of Australia we must make every effort to take up this leeway and to see that the imbalance is rectified. We must be doing all we can to correct this imbalance. It is not a simple problem to solve because costs involved for tourists coming from overseas to this country are a lot higher than those for Australian tourists going to Europe and South East Asia on cheap air fares. This of course, has resulted in a downturn in the number of tourists coming to Australia. One realises that the Australian Tourist Commission has done a very good job in promoting Australia overseas, but we must see that the number of overseas visitors to Australia is increased. Although the Commission with limited resources has done a good job, nevertheless it is felt that it must increase its efforts to overcome the leeway between the number of visitors to Australia and the number of Australians travelling overseas. This poses the question whether we are doing enough to publicise this country overseas. I doubt this very much because on overseas visits recently - certainly I was in countries which were poor and whose departing tourists would find difficulty in financing tours to Australia - I did not see any advertisements promoting Australia in a tourist way. I feel that the same situation exists in European countries and possibly in the United States and Great Britain. In the last Budget a sum of only $4,758,000 was allocated by the Government to the Department of Tourism and Recreation.

Mr Collard:

– What was the allocation the year before?

Mr O’KEEFE:

– The year before it was $3,836,444. This is not sufficient capital to develop a big tourist industry. The $139m we receive from tourists coming to this country is a nice income but if we are to increase our tourist intake, we must spend more money in promoting this country. When one goes to an overseas country like Yugoslavia and looks at its tourist industry, which has no better attractions than those in Australia but which of course has a bigger European population to draw on, one finds that its income from tourism is of the order of $300m. 1 note that the Minister is unhappy with tourist promotion. He is doing a good job with a limited amount of funds from the Treasury. He said recently that he was not satisfied with the Government’s performance in promoting Australia. He said:

Our promotion overseas has not been as good as it could be.

He said there was no doubt the last Budget did nothing to help the Australian Tourist Commission. He went on to say that he would be arguing in Federal Cabinet for significant increases in spending on tourist development in the 1974 Budget. I hope that members on the Government side will see that this Minister, who is endeavouring to do a job with limited facilities, is given more and adequate finance to increase our tourist promotion, to the advantage of this country, so as to attract more overseas visitors. I feel that the Act in its present form certainly could be enlarged in certain respects. The Minister in his second reading speech said that the Commission will be asked to undertake ‘umbrella* nationwide promotions in co-operation with the States and the travel industry aimed at complementing and supporting existing promotional and policy activities. Can the Minister explain this and how he proposes to ensure that the Australian Tourist Commission does not simply make a superfluous promotional effort in a field already well covered by the State tourist bureaus and industries? Indeed, in the legislation there is no mention of assistance to the States in this field. Also, when we look at the State tourist activities, we find that local government bodies too have played a very important part in the promotion of tourism in their respective areas, particularly as members of regional tourist Associations.

I would also like to know whether the intention of the Bill is to downgrade the voice of the industry in the Australian Tourist Commission. Under the existing legislation 2 of the 5 voting members of the Commission are representatives of the industry. As a result of the implementation of the legislation that we are debating tonight the industry will be represented by only 2 of the 9 members of the Commission. That means that it will run the risk of having its voice completely drowned out. I feel that this is quite an important factor ‘because the tourist industry members of the Commission are people who are acquainted with the industry and its requirements. It will be a great pity if the voice of experience of the industry representatives is drowned out by the voices of the other members of the Commission. The industry will want to know who the 2 new members of the Commission will be and what interests they will represent.

I was interested in the remarks of the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Eric Robinson) and his praise of the great part that private enterprise has played in the past and is still playing in the tourist industry. As the honourable member for Mcpherson comes from the Gold Coast, which is an area steeped in tourism and in the attraction of people, I feel that his remarks would be very much to the point. I quite agree with him that Australia must provide more up to date and better accommodation facilities for overseas visitors. We must have better hotels and motels and super accommodation to attract overseas visitors. Australia is a wonderful country with unlimited tourist potential. I quite agree with the remarks of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) about the wonderful beaches that there are not only in his electorate but also in the electorate of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) and on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland. In fact there are wonderful beaches right around our coastline. Australia has wonderful scenery. AH we have to do is promote it. We have to provide more and better accommodation facilities.

The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has made numerous Press statements to the effect that the tourist industry is clamouring for assistance. I have in front of me an article on the subject. It reads:

Australia’s tourist industry is lobbying hard for Federal Government assistance and the granting of taxation rebates in the coming Budget, as it braces for a period of restricted investment, burgeoning cost pressures and negative growth in overseas arrivals.

The clamour for tangible Federal support is mounting against a backdrop of fierce South Pacific competition, unfavourable changes in currency parities, rising domestic and international travelling costs and gloomy forecasts by the Australian Tourist Commission.

That and other articles along those lines indicate very clearly that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation is on the ball and that he is doing everything possible to make tourism tick in Australia. But we have to see that he is given the muscle to do so. We have to see that he is given the opportunity of doing the job that he wants to do. In my association with the tourist industry in the North West Regional Tourist Association I have always been one for the influencing of more American visitors to come to Australia. It is pleasing to note that 20 charter flights of tourists from the United States of America will be coming to this country in the near future. They will bring something like 4,300 tourists. In fact, some of them are here now. Others are yet to come. That is pleasing because visitors from the United States are good money spinners and we want more tourists to come to Australia from that source.

I pay tribute to the regional tourist associations in the various States, which, with limited financial assistance from their respective State governments and from local government, have promoted tourism extremely well. There are 2 of them in my electorate of Paterson. There is the Hunter Valley Regional Tourist Association, which has its headquarters at Newcastle, and the North West Regional Tourist Association, which has its headquarters at Gunnedah. Both associations have done a wonderful job. They have many wonderful attractions. They have the Hunter Valley wineries, the Glenbawn Dam and the other dams in the area, the lovely beaches 18 miles away at Newcastle, the Burning Mountain at Wingen and the Great Dividing Range to mention but a few.

Mr Hunt:

– What about the Warrumbungles at Coonabarabran?

Mr O’KEEFE:

– The honourable member for Gwydir always gets that one in. The Warrumbungle Mountains are in his electorate of Gwydir. They also come under the North West Regional Tourist Association. All of those wonderful Australian projects and objects are very interesting to tourists, but the difficulty is in getting them out into the country to show them those projects and objects. Far too many of the ships that come into Sydney and other Australian ports carry tourists who never go out into country areas. I know of a large ship that arrived in Sydney some months ago loaded with American tourists who never even got off the ship but who stayed on it playing cards. We should have had those people out into our country areas showing them the terrain and the wonderful facilities and tourist objects that we have in this country.

I have mentioned that this Bill is a good Bill and that the Opposition supports it. But it is lacking in certain respects. I have mentioned some of them. It does not go far enough. There is no mention of assistance being given to the regional organisations in the States. The local people who have the expertise and enthusiasm are very important to tourist promotion. They have made tourism in their own areas a success by their own financial efforts plus the little bit of support they receive from local government authorities. If by some means we could get the airline operators in Australia to assist us by asking for cheaper aid fares for overseas tourists or for tourism in Australia we would also be. helping this great industry. Instead of being an industry that earns$1 39m from overseas tourists it should be an industry that is earning in the $200m to $300m bracket. The Treasury, Cabinet, Government and Minister for Tourism and Recreation have to ensure that more muscle is given to tourism so that it can really get off the ground in a big way.

I do not know just what the Australian Tourist Commission has done to promote Australia in the United States market but friends who have come back from the United States have told me that one sees and reads very little in that country about the wonderful facilities, scenery and everything else that we have in this country. As a visitor to Great Britain I saw very little about Australia on my tour. The Australian Tourist Commission has done a good job in promoting Australia overseas and will do a good job in the local field but, despite its efforts, I think there is still room for us to promote Australia to our advantage in overseas countries and to bolster tourism for the benefit of the economy of this country.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– Some of the speeches I have heard in this House tonight are very illustrative of what I think is the fault with tourism in this country. The illustration I would like to give - I think this is something which extends throughout the country - concerns the parochialness of people’s views on tourism. In saying that I mean no offence to any of the honourable members who have participated in this debate tonight. It is about time that we in Australia started to think nationally about tourism and ceased to think parochially about it. Certainly, the beaches in the electorate of my friend the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) are delightful. I could say the same of every beach in Sydney and every beach in Australia, particularly in the suburbs of the electorate of Warringah that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, represent, which are probably the most delightful beaches in Australia. But that is not the issue. The issue is that we should think nationally and less parochially about tourism in Australia.

I must also take issue with the previous speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe). He mentioned that in this year’s Budget only about $4,750,000 was allocated to the Department of Tourism and Recreation. That statement is not correct. The amount of $4,750,000 was allocated solely to tourism within Australia; $3m was provided to the Australian Tourist Commission and $1,750,000 was allocated for Australiana projects in Australia. In addition to those amounts, $6m was appropriated for recreation purposes. I also take issue with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) who, in his speech this evening, said that the Department of Tourism and Recreation had hindered the tourist industry by reducing or disallowing taxation deductions for depreciation in respect of buildings used for tourism purposes. That is not so. This Government has never allowed such a deduction; nor did the previous Government. No deduction has ever been allowed for depreciation on any buildings used for tourism purposes. The only deductions ever granted for depreciation of buildings were granted to the primary producers. Those deductions were severely watered down in the last Budget.

The Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1974 is an attempt by ths Government to lift the tourist industry in Australia out of the doldrums. Up to this time the Australian Tourist Commission, which was set up in 1967, has been restricted in its activities to the encouragement of visits to Australia and travel in Australia by people from other countries. Up to date it has had no charter to encourage tourism in Australia by Australians. This Bill seeks to remedy that situation. As I said earlier, from its formation in 1967 up to the present date the Australian Tourist Commission has been empowered only to canvass overseas for visitors to come to Australia. An implicit factor in such promotion was the foreign exchange earnings which Australia received from inflows of overseas tourists. Since late 1972 and early 1973 Australia’s balance of payments has been very buoyant. Some people have said that it has been over-buoyant. It has been buoyant to the extent that, to maintain internal equilibrium in the face of continuing strong growth in exports of our major commodities, successive revaluations have been necessary.

By virtue of the Australian currency link with the United States dollar and the latter’s continued appreciation against other major world currencies, the value of the Australian dollar relative to overseas currencies, particularly relative to the currencies of our major tourist markets, has been creeping upwards. For example, in June 1973 the Australian dollar was worth 3.5 deutschemarks, 379 yen or 55 British new pence. Only 6 months later the Australian dollar was worth more than 4 deutschemarks, 420 yen or 64 British new pence. In each case the increase is significant. The advent of the oil crisis has further strengthened the Australian dollar and the United States dollar. However, the foreign exchange aspect of tourism - at present, happily, it is of relatively minor importance to our overall balance of payments situation - has extremely important overtones for various sectors of the tourism industry. Thus, it should not be neglected in future marketing or promotional activities which are being undertaken by Australian Government tourism instrumentalities.

Indeed, revaluation and the strength of the Australian currency are adverse factors which discourage overseas tourists from coming to Australia. United States visitors now find that they obtain fewer Australian cents for their American dollar than previously. A similar situation faces Japanese tourists. Visitors from many other countries are discouraged, to some extent, by the high cost of a holiday in Australia, particularly the high cost of accommodation and domestic air fares. This situation has been exacerbated by the upward trend of the Australian dollar. Thus, the strength of the Australian dollar is a factor that is encouraging Australians to travel abroad rather than to see their own country first. This Government, through the Australian Tourist Commission, certainly has no wish to deter Australians from broadening their horizons by travelling overseas. At the same time, however, as a result of this legislation and other actions taken by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), Australians will now be offered the prospect of a viable alternative to travelling overseas.

Whilst Australia’s exchange reserves are currently high - they have been for some time - there is no rationale which suggests that this is necessarily a permanent state of affairs. I think that the contrary could be the result. In fact, factors are developing both in the internal economy and in the external world economy which eventually may require a change in our foreign exchange policy and an increasing emphasis on earning foreign exchange from overseas tourists in Australia. Some points made by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation in his second reading speech are worth repeating. The Minister said:

  1. . based on current estimates for the year ended 31 December 1973, about 319,000 short term visitors came to Australia and short term departures amounted to about 460,000.

In other words, the difference between the number of tourists coming into Australia and the number of tourists leaving Australia was about 140,000. The Minister went on:

In money terms in the same period, receipts amounted to$139m and spendings by Australians travelling overseas as short term visitors were $359m, a staggering gap of $220m . . .

This is an increase of 25 per cent over the figure for the previous year. The main purpose of this Bill is to attempt to bridge that gap and to encourage more Australians to holiday in Australia. The theme of the Australian Tourist Commission could well be, as the purpose of this Bill is, to encourage Australians to see Australia first. How many members of this Parliament have really seen Australia? How many honourable members have been to Western Australia, the Kimberleys, Ayers Rock, Alice Springs, northern Queensland and Tasmania - the Apple Isle - to name but a few of our tourist attractions? If parliamentarians have not been to those places - I suggest that most members of this Parliament have not been to see these places although they have travel opportunities which are not shared by the general populace - what an untapped source of tourist potential must exist amongst the rest of the Australian population.

With due respect to the various tourist agencies, both governmental and private, which already operate, I suggest that it is abundantly clear that no real attempt has been made in Australia to encourage tourism. That applies equally to promotion of overseas tourism and tourism within Australia by Australians. Domestic tourism promotion is fragmented and parochial. Various groups are paddling their own canoes, with no overall plan of campaign. It is well known that promotion costs money, but the rewards are rich. This Government has gone part of the way to remedying that situation, but inmy view not far enough. Whilst the funds made available for tourism and recreation by this Government are an increase on the amounts made available by previous Liberal-Country Party governments, they are still not enough and are still only a drop in the bucket.

The amount of $3m which was allocated in the Budget for 1973-74, plus the additional amounts granted for Australiana projects, in world terms would be considered to be a paltry sum when one considers the net gains which could be achieved by even one worthwhile world promotion. Proper and sustained promotion has made Hawaii into a tourist mecca. I have not been to Hawaii and I have no wish to go there. But people who have been there and to whom I have spoken have informed me that Hawaii does not compare with the natural attractions in Australia. I ask honourable members to compare the number of people who visit Hawaii, because it has been sold to them, with the number of people who visit Australia. The fault lies in the fact that we have failed to sell Australia to tourists.

One does not need to look any further for an example than the tourist promotion of New Zealand that occurs in Australia. New Zealand’s television advertising within Australia is tastefully and well done. Promotionally it is very good. It is so good that recently it encouraged even me to visit that country; but I came back convinced that Australia has far more to offer in tourist attractions than has New Zealand. The only difference is that Australia does not sell Australia whereas New

Zealand sells New Zealand. Australia will not achieve its tourist potential by piously hoping that tourists will come to Australia to experience our alleged good mateship or drink our varied brands of beer. Australia must break out of the tourist rut it is in. What we need is a new and daring attitude to tourism. We have much to learn from the rest of the world. To achieve our optimum, Australia must get together with the various warring tourism forces which today are holding us back. If need be we must crack a few heads together. To make a decent omelet one must break a few eggs, but the net result of those broken eggs usually turns out worth while and attractive. I suggest that if we break a few eggs we may achieve something in the tourist field.

As I said previously, Australia has much to learn from overseas tourist promotion. In tourist parlance the most perishable commodity is an empty airline seat, an empty bus seat or an empty train seat. While it is unoccupied it is not earning a cent. Australia has no prorating of air fares. A tourist coming here from Japan, America or any other country can obtain the lower mileage rate only to his port of entry into Australia. Thereafter he must pay the normal and high domestic rate of fare. Why in heaven’s name cannot we absorb the cost of the domestic air, bus or rail fare into the overall cost of the ticket to Australia? Other countries do this; why not Australia? Why does Australia not have something like the Eurail ticket which allows a tourist in Europe to travel 100,000 miles through 13 countries at a cost of $A120? Italy provides concession prices for petrol for tourists. The price is less than half the normal domestic price. This is something about which we should think in Australia. France has a special rate of exchange for tourists at a much better rate than the normal business rate. Australia provides no such advantage. It is now much better financially, from an exchange point of view, for a tourist from Japan or the United States of America to visit Europe than Australia. I suggest that a bit of imaginative thinking by Australians interested in tourism could bridge this gap.

The latest report of the Australian Tourist Commission lists the offices it maintains throughout the world. Frankly I was disappointed when I saw how few offices the Australian Tourist Commission has overseas. In the United States of America it has three - in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. In the

United Kingdom it has one office in London. In the whole of Europe it has one office in Frankfurt in West Germany. How ludicrous that Australia should have one office in Europe promoting Australian tourism. In New Zealand we have one office in Auckland. In Japan we have one office in Tokyo. I do not blame the Australian Tourist Commission for this state of affairs. It has been trying to fight with its hands tied behind its back, the reason being that successive governments, including the Government of which I am proud to be a member, have failed to make sufficient money available to enable the Commission to function effectively and efficiently.

As I said earlier, I was in New Zealand recently. While I was there, had I not been an Australian I would not have known of Australia’s existence. Australian racing results were not mentioned, not that this is important, but Australia gets little if any mention in the New Zealand Press. Perhaps I was not looking hard enough but I did not see one advertisement in the major New Zealand newspapers mentioning Australia. I never saw one advertisement concerning Australia on television. In my own home in Sydney in the little time I have in which to watch television I get thrashed by advertisements about New Zealand. The words ‘Come to New Zealand’ assail me every so often. There is even a song Come to New Zealand’ with which my own kids thrash me. That is how they talked me into going to New Zealand. My point is that Australia has failed lamentably in promoting overseas this wonderful country, its wonderful climate and its wonderful tourist attractions.

Mr Calder:

– Under your Prime Minister.

Mr MARTIN:

– It failed lamentably under 23 years of the previous Government. I hope that in the next Budget the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Treasury will be a little more sympathetic to tourism and will allocate funds to enable the Australian Tourist Commission to function as efficiently as it should function. I have recently returned from a credit union conference in Tasmania. The conference was held at Wrest Point. I have in my possession a map which indicates what Tasmanians think of Australia. This map actually was a place mat at a dinner I attended. The map shows Tasmania as a big island with Australia as a little island above it. I think that not only does it indicate how Tasmanians feel about Australia . but also it is illustrative of the fact that we are not selling Australia.

Mr Graham:

– Have you not seen maps of Australia with Tasmania left off?

Mr MARTIN:

– I understand that the map to which I have referred was developed as a result of a map on display in Australia House which showed Australia without Tasmania. It took a Minister of the Crown from Tasmania to draw to the attention of Australia House officials the fact that their map of Australia did not show the island of Tasmania beneath it. The map I have is probably a sling-off at that map of Australia in Australia House, but it shows how the people of Tasmania feel about Australia generally. I must say that the Tasmanians promote Tasmania as a tourist attraction. The people and the State Government have promoted it. I have never stayed at a better hotel with a better standard of accommodation than the hotel at Wrest Point in Tasmania. A person can even win at the casino. I proved that.

My point is that if proper tourist facilities and good accommodation are provided, Australia has the natural scenery to attract tourists. All we need is the money to sell Australia and I hope that in the next Budget the Government will provide sufficient funds to the Australian Tourist Commission to sell Australia. The benefits derived from the provision of adequate funds will be more than recouped. As I said earlier, it will be paid back a hundredfold.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– At the moment we are talking about a country which is virtually hundreds of dollars away from most other countries - a country which lacks the obvious sights and signs of previous civilisations with their past glories. Australia was settled less than 200 years ago. The settlement that Europeans brought to Australia is not unlike so many other parts of the world and if we carefully judge our continent we must realise that Australia does not have much to offer the international tourist. We have the magnificent Great Barrier Reef, Ayres Rock, the Sydney Opera House and a few other features if we think in terms of what an international tourist wishes to see. We have ourselves as a race of people worth getting to know. However we must recognise at all times that Australia has an uphill battle when it comes to selling itself on the overseas tourist market.

In recent years we have been fortunate that the Japanese in their new era of affluence, have wanted more and more to visit Australia. In the last couple of years, however, because of the change in currency parity, we have seen a decline in American tourists. In 1963 American tourists represented 23 per cent of our entire tourist trade, but in 1972 this fell to 16 per cent. I do not know what the figure will be at the end of this year. The history of tourism in Australia shows a lamentable record in regard to the recognition of the importance of this industry by the present Government and the Government which held office prior to 1972. To support this condemnation I point out that it was only in the policy speech made in 1972 that the previous Government suddenly recognised when it had its back to the wall that it was about time we did something to -make money available to the tourist industry. As I see it the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), like his predecessors responsible for tourism, has seen the nub of the problem but when he goes to the Cabinet there is a definite lack of appreciation and understanding on its part. It is a great pity that each of the Ministers in charge of portfolios, no matter which party is in power, has had so much on his plate and he does not have the time to sit down for a few minutes to make a study of this very important industry.

We have heard honourable members say that in the past year Australia earned $139m from the tourist industry but this amount is laughable when one considers that the tourist income in other countries runs into billions of dollars. Indeed, the small island of Jamaica earns as much as Australia from tourism. The secret of success is that these countries have access to the tourist market. The difficulty confronting Australia is in bringing people to this country. It is all very well for my dear friend the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) to suggest a lowering’ of air fares to entice tourists to Australia. A study of the pattern of air fares over the last few years will reveal that there has been a downward trend in fares but because of the shortage of fuel this cannot continue and of course air fares have to rise on the international routes. This is another problem confronting Australia in promoting tourism.

I believe that the Australian Tourist Commission has already predicted a downward trend in the number of tourists who may visit Australia. I have seen leaving Australia many aeroplanes filled to capacity with young Australians going overseas. There must be a greater effort overseas to fill those aeroplanes and bring people back to Australia. Perhaps a new air fare structure can be introduced to make tourism to this country more attractive. I conceded a moment ago that air fares will get dearer but the fact is that for years and years Australia’s national airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, has hidden under the blanket of the International Air Transport Association by saying that IATA has stopped Qantas from doing this and that. On a number of occasions in recent years Qantas has seen fit to forget aboutIATA and go its own way. I do not believe that in the most ruthless jungle of free enterprise, that of air travel, there is any longer a need for our national airline to conform strictly with this loosely knit organisation known as IATA which makes agreements from which most airlines bail out if they feel it suits them to do so. A greater effort should be made to fill the planes which leave here and bring people back to Australia.

What a tragedy this year has been for tourism. I do not necessarily blame the present Government for this situation. It may be that because the American dollar is worth only 65c Australian this has led to the situation where American Airlines have had to cease travel operations to this country. One of the hidden factors - and this is a point on which I could be critical of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) - is that if an overseas airline is flying to Australia it has a vested interest in ensuring the promotion of Australia in order to encourage people to use its aircraft to visit this country. I have on notice a question to the Minister for Transport. There was some talk in the newspapers that some effort would be made by Qantas to force British Airways to cut back the number of flights it makes to Australia. While I concede that our national airline ought to be filled to capacity as frequently as possible surely in the long term this is a short-sighted approach.

Whilst I am speaking about civil aviation, I condemn the present Australian Labor Party Government for being so inconsistent in extending the writ of the Australian Tourist Commission whilst at the same time making it so much more expensive for Australians to travel within our shores. Since the ALP Government came to power it has adopted the attitude that the airline passenger must pay for every conceivable aspect of expenditure incurred. The effect has been an escalation in fares. I have not had the opportunity to study this area but I would be prepared to accept with out verification or even without checking that with the exclusion of the South-East Asian countries Australia has the highest rate per mile for internal airline travel of any other country. Despite this the previous speakers on the Government side have complained about the fact that Australians go overseas before they see Australia.

I wish the Commission all the best in its endeavours to promote Australia. But the plain hard fact is that it is a lot cheaper to go overseas than it is to do a tour around this country. I believe that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, who has shown a keen interest in this portfolio, is fully aware of this but has had little chance to make any impression whatsoever on the Cabinet which at present rules this country. Under this Bill we are extending the writ of activities which the Commission may engage in but we continue to make it harder for this very organisation, which this Bill sets out to assist, to work properly.

The honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) said that we have 3 tourist offices in the United States. I think he said they were located in Los Angeles, Chicago and some other place. I may be wrong but my understanding is that the office in Chicago was recently closed down. Therefore we only have 2 tourist offices in the United States. Chicago is one of the pick-up points for American Airlines. Because of the discontinued flights by this airline we have probably lost thousands of dollars in future tourist income, because there is a very large population in the central States of America. The honourable member also said that there is no concession for overseas visitors travelling in Australia. If my memory serves me correctly I believe that if an overseas tourist travels a distance of 1,000 miles in Australia his internal airfare is subject to a discount in the vicinity of 25 per cent. Although the honourable member for Banks was incorrect in respect of one aspect, which I have now corrected, he was dead right when he said - and he underlined this fact - that many overseas countries make concessions available to make it worth while for overseas visitors to travel within their country. We ignore the fact that millions of dollars will be lost in tourist earnings if we are not prepared to change direction and recognise the possibilities that can be tapped.

I was rather brutally attacked by the honourable member for Banks and there was even a threat of violence in his words because I suggested that accommodation in Australia was not necessarily comparable to good accommodation overseas. It was amusing to listen to his colleague, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who told a story of the bark hut in the north, where all he had was a tiled floor, and his 3 small children were in wooden beds. As a person who has been fortunate to travel - extensively inside Australia and abroad I can assure honourable members that our tourist accommodation outside the main capital cities, Surfers Paradise and a few odd hotels and motels throughout the rest of the country, is very much below international tourist standard. I shall not describe every little town or capital city I have ever visited or every island resort, but we must recognise that the commodity of service in Australia is so much more expensive.

This is an area in which we really cannot compete. In the poorer Asian countries labour is so much cheaper and service can be turned on. In Australia it costs so much more for a bellboy, a bellhop or a girl to come every time you press a button and require a particular service. The overall costs of providing these people in Australia are so much greater. I commend the Government on one of the benefits of the amendment to the Commonwealth Banks Act which provides that finance will be made available to the tourist industry. Perhaps this source of money may assist in some way to upgrade the standard of accommodation which presently exists in Australia.

I sincerely hope that no following speaker from the Government side will stand up and condemn me as a person with no pride in my own country or as someone who is disloyal. For those on the Government side who do not know, perhaps such an attack would be understandable, but those who have some understanding of the tourist industry I am quite certain would recognise that what I have said this evening is true and correct. In Asia the Australian Tourist Commission is laughed at - I mean this - by the Asians. It is not the fault of that organisation. We give it such a small handout - just $3m - to promote a country the size of Australia, and it cannot possibly do the job that it is supposed to do. I believe that with the little amount of money it has it is doing quite well. But it is almost ironic that in the Asian region, where the great bulk of people, particularly the Japanese live, there is so little respect for our tourist promotion. Why some tourists do come here, 1 do not know. Perhaps those who do all the surveys can work this out.

It is high time that each and every one of us recognised that we in Australia have problems in promoting Australia, such as the great distances involved. This problem belongs to us; it does not, for instance, belong to Europe. We lack the glories of ancient civilisations to show off readily. We face an uphill battle and we should set about fighting it with an updated approach and with a recognition that frequently if one spends money it will soon come back. That is one of the areas where the present Government could help. To back up my statement, it is interesting to note a report contained in the ‘Australian’ of 11 February 1974. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation, Mr Stewart, is reported as saying:

The Coombs Report was not exactly laudatory of tourism and I expect this would have had an effect on expenditure.

My friends from the Australian Country Party and country members of the Liberal Party will surely spell out between now and the next election the long term effects of the Coombs Report. 1 know that the Coombs Report also suggested that the Brisbane airport proposal be shelved.

Mr Cooke:

– What about what Jack Egerton said about the international terminal in Brisbane?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I agree. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Charles Jones) heaped great praise on the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), for what had been achieved and Mr Egerton came out and condemned them all. Here we have another occasion when a Minister is running behind the Coombs Report and using it as a reason why things are not happening as they should be happening. The newspaper report also states:

Mr Stewart said he would be arguing

What a pity this is - in Federal Cabinet for significant increases in spending on tourist development in the 1974 Budget.

He agreed with the criticisms made in London . . by the chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission, Mr . . . Greenway, who predicted a grim outlook for tourism in Australia this year.

The writing is on the wall. It is up to this Government which has come to power to set about combating the decline which has occurred, not necessarily because of the fact that it has become the Government in Australia, but because of a number of other factors. There is a challenge ahead and I can assure the Minister that honourable members on this side of the House will at all times do everything possible to assist the Government to promote this most worthwhile industry which I think is as low as ninth or tenth on the list of Australian industries, when with a little bit more effort it could be pushed right up the ladder as a earner of foreign income.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

– Listening to some of the honourable members on the other side of the chamber one would think that the only interest in this debate is the proposal’s economic impact on Australia. I wish to raise other aspects tonight, namely, the impact on the environment of the increased number of tourists, both those circulating in Australia, and, if we are successful, those coming from overseas. In introducing the Australian Tourist Commission Bill the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) pointed to the expanding travel gap which was $52m in 1968, $176m in 1972, and had expanded to $220m last year - the travel gap being, of course, the money spent by Australian travellers overseas as compared with the income generated by overseas travellers in Australia. He quite rightly pointed out that this expanding gap can be partly explained by exchange variation, the termination at the end of December 1971 of the United States Services rest and recreation leave, and the uncompetitive fare situation. This is another aspect which has been belaboured in this debate. The Minister might also have added that Australia is off the beaten track for parcel tours. But the point is: How can we better this position without stopping our people from going overseas and spending Australian currency abroad?

Obviously we can do this by promoting travel inside Australia so that Australians may learn about their own country and its heritage. We should make this internal travel more’ attractive so that Australians can see and learn more about their own country. The amendments to the principal Act that are contained in the Bill are to make sure that the Australian Tourist Commission enters into the domestic field which in the past has been left to State governments, to Territory administrations and to the Australian National Travel Association and, of course, the various sectors that make up the travel industry, but as the Minister said, more in this area can be done. Statistics have been rather lean in this debate. It is no wonder, because it is such a young industry - 20 years - and is showing a fair degree of expansion. Statistics on the industry are very hard to come by but I have been able to unearth some from the Australian National Travel Association itself, which provided these figures.

In 1972 the domestic tourism figure was put at $2,400m with an annual growth rate of about 10 per cent. This figure is made up of the following components: Domestic airlines, $198m or 7.5 per cent; railways, $58m or 2.2 per cent; bus and coach services, $10 or 0.4 per cent; private motoring, a whacking great $l,769m or 67 per cent, or more than two-thirds of the total amount; and accommodation, meals and other sundry services, $605m or 22.9 per cent. In 1972, $139m was spent by overseas travellers in Australia; whereas, as I mentioned before, Australian travellers spent $331m overseas. So we can see that the companion Bill which is being debated in this cognate debate is designed to strengthen the various components in this sector so that we can further increase the amount of travel in this country.

I wish now to turn to the role of tourism in the economy which will be generated through increased domestic tourism. To become an industry, of course, tourism must be within the reach of ordinary people and not just of those we can describe as rich or wealthy or with many hours to spend. Tourism is the process of travel and the use of goods and services en route and at the destination. It takes into acount the transport operators, accommodation houses, retailers, restauranteurs, purveyors and, of course, the various government groups at local government, State government and Australian government levels. So we can see that the contribution to the economy is not just a matter of gaps - surpluses or deficits - because tourism gives impetus to decentralised activities. If we can create travel to the remoter parts of Australia away from the cities not only to escape the increasing tensions of our cities and of suburban living, then we support a whole range of industries - main industries and supporting industries - in decentralised areas.

The protection of the environment has not been mentioned yet. I will bring out shortly the interrelationship between the protection of the environment and the supporting industry, namely, tourism. They are very much interrelated and interdependent and should be brought closer together. Of course, any economist can tell us that even a domestic economy, if expanded, has an accelerating effect on the growth of our economy via the multiple effect. Tourism is all these things. But, above all, tourism is people - Australian people and people who wish to know about Australia. Unless a national tourism plan seeks, above all else, to respond to the needs and aspirations of Australians - discerning Australians seeking to derive maximum benefit from increasing leisure time - it is doomed to failure. If, however, it achieves this basic objective, it also will achieve its economic and related aims and, simultaneously, it will respond to the needs and aspirations of international visitors.

There is a great need for those involved in tourism and conservation to work more closely together. We must proceed in concert, not in conflict. Protests on either side will get nowhere, whereas reasoned discussions will. There is a growing concern among both parties concerned. Conservation is no longer the lone cry of a few. It is not long since tourism as we understand it today was the privileged pursuit of the affluent few. Today, conservation is the subject of an increasing groundswell of public, political and business support. As for tourism, increasing technology - particularly in the aviation area - longer holidays, higher incomes, better education and the accelerating affluence of the developing countries mean that mass travel is now a fact of national and international life.

There is an increasing pre-occupation with what I describe as participatory tourism - a genuine interest in other life styles, a concern not only to see but also to understand and to appreciate different peoples, different places and natural phenomena. However, this does not mean that the social and environmental problems of mass travel will solve themselves. On the contrary, sound and imaginative planning will be required if tourist development is to be consistent with the aims of the conservationists. Otherwise, as one authority has speculated, tourism could truly be found to harbour within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

Conservation is the wisest possible use, over a long term, of all our national resources for the benefit of man and his interdependent environment. It is also the enrichment and elevation of human experiences. Tourism is one of those experiences. But it will not be enjoyed by future generations if over-use by uncontrolled and increasing tourist numbers destroy it. Planned conservation, on the other hand, will preserve the goal of tourists. In other words, tourism and its earnings could well be the rationale for strong conservation policies. This accelerating groundswell of opinion which signals the folly of environmental despoliation, combined with the change that has led to leisure and recreation no longer being the preserve of the few, has led to the recognition that the factor of socio-economic interdependence must be central to the development of a balanced and sensitive national tourism plan.

The pace and nature of social change are such that the absence of proper planning on a national basis must presuppose ad hocism rampant. This, in turn, means people pollution, environmental despoliation, economic adversity and the soiling, if not the destruction, of the fabric of life in important parts of Australia. It means, in effect, that we will be running the very real risk of destroying those characteristics - tangible and intangible - which entice Australian and overseas visitors to travel the country in the first place. One need go no further than to see the possible destruction by increased tourist numbers on the Great Barrier Reef, in the Ayers RockMount Olga National Park and in large national parks very close to Australian metropolises which are the last refuges from the busy suburban life.

In conclusion, I would like to say that galloping technology and demand mean that the task is an urgent one. An increasingly mobile generation is impatient for a recreational product which is developed with the kind of sensitivity and imagination which will permit it to rediscover its heritage and to adjust, with minimal discomfort, to the future. These 2 Bills indicate not only that we wish to close the widening gap in international earnings or balance of payments in the tourist sector but also that we wish to support the very industry itself so that Australians can enjoy what is left of their heritage and at the same time to form the basis for a rational development of the twin elements of a successful tourist policy - the conservation and preservation of resources and the promotion of tourism itself.

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– These 2 Bills have as their basis the fostering and development of our rapidly mushrooming tourist industry. Positive moves to encourage the greater development of Australian resources within Australia, whilst retaining the traditional right to journey overseas, are commented on favourably by all residents, irrespective of their political creed. Any policy on tourism must, of necessity, have as its starting point the question: ‘Have we anything to offer and to see and if so, what?’ We must view this proposition against the background of all the world being the oyster, as it were, for the tourist and the traveller who must be courted. People the world over are becoming increasingly travel conscious and increasing millions of people are affluent enough to take advantage of the facilities provided in many countries to make travel easy, entertaining and comfortable. In this way the industry’s potential is rapidly being created, and a vast quantity of raw material is available in the form of persons looking for new fields to conquer.

The advent of the jumbo jet aircraft has accelerated the rate of overseas travel and made the whole world a potential customer. We need to be in a position to attract these people. Australia, of course, has very special attractions and a very special appeal as the last of the new frontiers among the nations; as the country with the Great Barrier Reef; and as a country which has fauna and flora and glistening white surfing beaches. In fact, our tourist attractions become jewels in the gloom of the lives of those who cannot escape from their harsh environments. We must remember, in any endeavour to improve our tourist potential, that the principal ingredient is people. Tourists are people - all kinds of people. They are individuals with separate interests and pursuits. There is a need for imagination to cater for the widest possible range of activities.

The need to increase the number of members of the Australian Tourist Commission and to allow all members to vote is appreciated. The slightly larger Commission will bring new ideas and possibly expertise if the members are selected on merit and are not merely filling jobs for the boys. We have noted recent statements concerning the intention to license travel agents. I proffer the suggestion that travel agents should not be merely ticket sellers; rather, they are in the front line force of promoting tourism. On them will largely fall the rather complex action of galvanising into fact the decisions of any promotional body. Any plan will rise or fall on the attitudes of these front line troops.

It is apparent that what the industry terms haulage and transport costs’ is of great and important significance in a country of the topography of Australia. People have a certain amount of money to spend and this has to be spent on transport, accommodation and entertainment. It is vitally important to remember that the Government must take positive steps to decrease the cost of transport because of the very great drain it makes on one’s resources. Whilst it is a bonanza for travel hungry Australians, the current fare-chopping war among international airlines is delivering a kick in the teeth to the domestic tourist industry. The exoticism and the relatively low cost of air travel to some foreign places are luring Australians in their thousands away from holidaying in their own country, as the Minister said in his second reading speech.

The Opposition applauds the moves to widen the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to provide finance for the development of tourism. Additionally, the Opposition appreciates the availability of $ 1.75m for the purposes of grants for promoting uniquely Australian native and historical attractions. I want to make a special appeal to those in power to make money available for the development of these industries, particularly where they are not yet commercial propositions, even though they may be in the long term. We must remember that all tourist industries have a problem with cash flow. They have a problem in overcoming short term financial problems. We in the Country Party want to be associated with the Government in its positive moves to encourage the development of the tourist industry. We make a particular appeal for some type of Government assistance to local authorities which, of necessity, have to build toilet facilities, caravan parks and camping grounds to cater for the increasing number of young Australians who are travelling. We ask the Government to promote among young Australians the desire to travel, because once they are bitten by the travel bug they will stay travellers all their lives. We also make an appeal for some Government assistance to local tourist associations, because these are the people who have a particular responsibility to develop a tourist industry away from the large city areas. Mr Speaker, I must conclude my remarks because the Opposition gave an undertaking to the Minister that we would finish the debate on these Bills by 10.25 p.m.

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 Daly) read a third time.

page 965

COMMONWEALTH BANKS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 19 March (vide page 547), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 965

ADJOURNMENT

Casual Vacancies in the Senate - Government’s Rural Policies - Commonwealth Railways Property: Fire Protection - Road Safety - Sittings of the Parliament: Anzac Day - Land Acquisition in the Australian Capital Territory

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Tonight I want to refer - I regret to say, for the second time - to the remarkable speech made 13 months ago by that very perceptive member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). On 3 May 1973 the honourable member for Mackellar said:

Now casual vacancies can occur in two ways - either through the death or resignation of a senator or through the engineered resignation of a senator. It could be vital if the Labor Party could engineer, before the next Senate election, a casual vacancy for a long term non-Labor senator for either Queensland or Western Australia, which are the 2 vital States–

One seems to have become more vital than the other - because these are the States where with 5 vacancies the split would be likely to be three to two against Labor, but with six vacancies the split would be likely to be three all. I do not know what will happen but I am ready to bet that the Labor Party will be making desperate efforts to engineer casual vacancies among the long term non-Labor Party senators for those 2 States.

The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) rose to a point of order and made a very perceptive comment. He said:

The honourable member is suggesting that members of the Senate could be corrupted.

I take up the point by using the words of the honourable member for Bowman. He said that if this occurred the Senate would be corrupted.

Leaving aside the question of whether any member of the Senate is corruptible, the encouragement of corruption as expressed by the honourable member for Bowman is quite clear. This is precisely what has happened. Because it was politically expedient, the Government has done precisely what the honourablemember for Mackellar accurately forecast 13 months ago. Enough banal phrases have been used to describe this situation. As one who represents a small section of the people of Australia I think that deep disgust must be felt in the community about this situation. I do not intend to canvass tonight what may result in an injunction before the High Court.

I just wish to refer to the information published recently by consultants to the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science regretting the Labor Party’s attitude towards agriculture. I think that honourable members will realise that that is a conservative statement. In a recent statement submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) the consultants claimed that primary producers had always adopted the policy of using profits earned in periods of prosperity for reinvestment in productive resources as a defence against future adversity. All honourable members will know the erratic nature of returns to areas of primary production. I am sorry that the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) is not here tonight to hear what I have to say.

The consultants found that as a result of Government policies there is now a disincentive to invest in agriculture and a growing lack of confidence in the rural community. I would like the House to take note of this next sentence. They said that money that would previously have been reinvested to maintain normal growth is now diverted to city real estate. The consultants argued that special consideration for investment in agriculture is the inescapability of its long term nature rendering it impossible to make significant production changes in the short term. There is an immobility of resources in all aspects of agriculture which must now be recognised. One can say quite clearly that legislation introduced by . the previous Government and carried on by this Government has the effect of restructuring debts and of allowing aggregation of land in the rural areas. But there is no Government legislation before the House at present - I am trying to put forward a case tonight that there should be - to overcome the average old age of the population in certain rural areas. Only yesterday the significance of the low level of return in rural areas particularly for rural workers was mentioned by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). His statement ties in with the report of the consultants to which I have referred. If I may, I should like to go a stage further. I will not mention tonight the $500m at 3 per cent which was the alleged promise - I will be careful - of the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) prior to the last election because I want to go one stage further. For many years now we have heard from members of the Opposition as they then were but who are now members of the Government that the important principle in any democratic situation should be the principle of one vote-one value. What has the Government brought forward in relation to the referendum proposals shortly to be put before the Australian people? On the one side it has produced a plea for the implementation of one vote-one value but on the other it has run right away from this principle by bringing forward a proposal for boundary redistributions to be based on population and not on voters.

Mr Cooke:

– It is a lurk.

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member for Petrie says that it is a lurk. That may be right or it may be wrong. But what is certainly so is that the Government has run right away from the principle of one vote-one value. If one looks at the way boundaries will be drawn under these proposals which stupidly enough are labelled a ‘referendum for democratic elections’ one will find that the result will be biased away from the principle of one vote- one value.

Let us tie in the 3 things I have said so far: On the one hand we have a high average age of people living in many rural areas because this Government and past governments have done nothing to try to encourage young people - young share farmers - to go onto rural areas. This has been done in South Australia and I have played a real part in this. In time gone by the Rural Advances Guarantee Act provided government support of up to 85 per cent on private loans to make sure that properly competent people who were experienced in their field were encouraged to take up a block of land they knew well. This Government is not doing this at present. The Government is allowing the average age in many rural areas to get higher and higher and I ask it to do something about this situation.

Let us couple that situation with the referendum for so-called democratic elections. The Government is allowing obsolescence, if that is not too rude a word, to occur in some rural sectors. On the other hand, the referendum for so-called democratic elections will base electorates on total populace including those below 18 years of age which will give a biased result in some inner city suburbs. We must also take into account all those new Australians who have no serious aim of staying in this country. Many of them are only waiting to return to the countries from which they came or, for some other reasons, they have not become naturalised. So, there is a double bias on the one hand weighted against a bias in the other direction all of which is working against the principle of one vote-one value that so many members on the Government side have espoused for so long. Let us be fair about this. The Government is running away from its self-professed principle of one vote-one value. Let us consider the results of the recent election in Western Australia. Everybody knows that in some outflung areas of Western Australia there are electorates which have a very low number of people. But roughly speaking, the National Alliance Party received 10 per cent of the vote in Western Australia, the Australian Labor Party received 48.5 per cent of the vote and the Liberal Party received 41 per cent or thereabouts. That percentage was accurately portrayed at the last election.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– It is not often that I speak on the adjournment but tonight I should like to take the opportunity of raising a matter that is of great concern to the employees of an Australian Government instrumentality. I refer to the employees of the Commonwealth Railways who are required to work on the trans-continental railway and on the central Australian railway. These employees, most of whom are fettlers carrying out the necessary line maintenance of these particular railways are stationed at a number of camps along these lines, the 3 main ones on the east-west line being at Tarcoola and Cook on the South Australian side of the border and at Rawlinna on the Western Australian side. There would be in the vicinity of 20 houses in each of these camps. The houses are in the main of wooden construction and in most cases have been up for many years. They are in areas where summer temperatures can reach extremes. I have personally experienced temperatures in the vicinity of 120 degrees fahrenheit in these areas.

The matter I would like to raise tonight is the extent of necessary fire protection available to people living in these isolated railway camps. I have already discussed this matter with the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) who has the ministerial responsibility in this field and have received assurances from him that he will investigate the cause of the complaint which I now mention. On 28 February last, for reasons of which I am unaware, one of these timber houses at Cook along the Nullabor Plain caught alight. The tenant of the house was a fettler who had only recently been transferred to Cook with his wife and children. I understand that his wife had slipped out of the house to make some purchases from the Commonwealth railway store nearby. She had left a 9 months’ old baby asleep in the house.

It was then noticed that the house had caught fire and, before any effective means of controlling the fire was found, it was too late and despite all the efforts of the local people the unfortunate child was burned to death. Not only did the unfortunate family lose their youngest child but also they lost all their furniture and household effects and in fact now have to start off again from scratch. As usually happens in unfortunate cases such as this, everybody has rallied around to give them the maximum assistance, but all this assistance does not bring back the child they have lost.

My reason for speaking on this matter tonight is the lack of adequate fire fighting equipment available in these camps when situations such as this arise. Twenty-five years ago I was transferred in my employment to one of these camps for approximately 3 years. One of the odd jobs that was often allocated to me was to check the fire fighting equipment.

In those days each of the houses had a small soda ash and acid type of hand extinguisher. There was also one larger type of extinguisher which, from memory, was called a ‘Waterloo’ type. This was a drum, approximately 4 feet to 4 feet 6 inches long and about 1 foot in diameter, filled with water, soda ash and acid. Attached to the drum was a pair of iron rimmed, spoke wheels. The whole apparatus had to be dragged by hand to the scene of any fire along a dirt road. I had one experience with it when one of the Commonwealth Railway buildings caught fire at Tarcoola and am aware of how awkward the apparatus is to handle. I might add that we did not save the building on that occasion.

On making some inquiries following the fire at Cook, I was shown photographs of the firefighting equipment and, to my surprise, I find it appears to be exactly the same equipment that was available 25 years ago. From the information given to me, when the fire was noticed, residents tried to use the hand extinguishers without success. Attempts were made to use a small hand pump to get water on the fire but the intense heat drove the residents from the available water supply. A small motor pump borrowed from the Postal Department employees was used, in addition to the larger Waterloo extinguisher, but all to no avail. The house with the child inside was burned to the ground. It was fortunate, I am told, that the adjoining houses did not also catch fire. I have photographs taken after the fire and one of these indicates the scorched paint work on the next house in the row. This house was apparently saved by a wind change. A strong wind blowing in the wrong direction could have destroyed many of the houses in the row.

Mr Speaker, I have given you a sketchy description of what happened at this Commonwealth Railways camp on the Nullabor Plain on 28 February last. It is obvious that the firefighting equipment to cover an emergency such as this is hopelessly inadequate and there is, surely, a strong responsibility on the Commonwealth Railways to take every step possible to see that situations such as this do not occur again. A full inquiry should be carried out to see what is required to give these Commonwealth employees some sort of modernised equipment to enable them to have the fire protection they need and deserve. The employees in these camps are among the lowest paid of all Commonwealth Railway employees.

They live in isolated situations, have to rely on nursing sisters for medical attention and the Flying Doctor in emergencies, or a train journey to either Port Augusta or Kalgoorlie, which in the case of Cook, where the fire occurred, is a trip in excess of 500 miles in either direction. They have no television, very poor wireless reception and they lack all modern amenities. They have to rely on the well-known ‘Tea and Sugar’ train for their supplies once a week.

Commonwealth Railways has great difficulty in recruiting staff for the very necessary railway maintenance jobs along its lines, and situations such as I have described would certainly not assist in recruiting staff. There is certainly a responsibility on the authorities to see that there is no repetition of such situations as I have outlined and that a full inquiry is made not only into the cause of the fire but also into what equipment is necessary to give railway employees the protection to which they are entitled. I ask the Minister to do n 15 utmost to see that these inquiries are carried out to the fullest extent. These employees are all members of the Australian Workers Union, whose representatives have asked my full assistance in seeing that drastic measures are taken to ensure no repetition of such situations. Failure to carry out the vast improvements needed can only bring about a situation where the union itself will have to take the necessary action to give its members protection. I therefore urge the Minister to do his utmost to rectify the intolerable position presently existing in an Australian Government instrumentality.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I believe it is very important that Anzac Day should continue to maintain its importance in the national calendar. I believe that the great majority, if not all, of the members on both sides of the House accept Anzac Day as one of our great national days. The commemoration of Anzac Day, the paying of tribute to all who have served Australia in the various theatres of war, continues even in very small towns throughout the Commonwealth. It is therefore a matter of regret to me that the sittings of this Parliament on the eve of Anzac Day could prevent members of the Federal Parliament from fulfilling commitments on Anzac Day in their own electorates. Because of this I have already sent the following telegram to the Minister for Services and Property and

Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam):

Strongly, protest against Parliament sitting on 24 April. This could prevent me and no doubt other members from fulfilling commitments in their own electorates on Anzac Day. Government proposals show little appreciation of the importance of Anzac Day to the Australian people throughout the nation.

Although I have been advised that it is the intention of the House to rise early on Wednesday, 24 April, this would not enable me to reach my home town in order to fulfil an engagement that I have accepted to be guest speaker at Anzac Day celebrations in my home town. I accepted the invitation to be guest speaker on that day because, as previously listed, Parliament was to sit the week preceding the week in which Anzac Day falls and the week in which Anzac Day falls was to have been a week when the House was not sitting. I register my protest that arrangements which probably allow metropolitan members to be in their electorates on Anzac Day but which deny that privilege to members who live in outlying areas are just not good enough in relation to a day as important as Anzac Day. The previous tentatively allocated sitting days notified were 17, 18 and 19 April, and the House was then not to sit during the week in which Anzac Day falls. I would like to know from the Minister why this program was altered to the disadvantage of members from outlying areas who want to be in the electorates for the celebration of Anzac Day. I believe that the matter I have raised should be considered. I believe that those members who live in outlying parts of this Commonwealth deserve consideration on such a day as Anzac Day. I raise this point with the Minister and register my protest against what I believe is a lack of recognition of the importance of Anzac Day and a lack of recognition of the needs of members from outlying areas.

I raise another matter tonight with regard to road safety. I welcome the grant of $3m to be spent on improving specific dangerous locations so as to prevent accidents from happening. I believe that every honourable member should support this objective. I certainly will co-operate to the fullest extent in promoting road safety, and with the co-operation of local authorities in the areas which I represent I will endeavour to do the best I can to comply with the wishes of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to have made known to him those locations, and perhaps the priority of locations, in certain areas which need attention. Nevertheless I wonder why the Minister has asked Federal members to report directly to him rather than Federal members making their approaches through the local authorities and the State Governments to the Minister, thus utilising the knowledge of the area and the expertise that local authorities could bring to bear in determining priorities. From my experience in local (government I am convinced that local government authorities can utilise funds made available to them to the advantage of the community even more effectively than either State or Federal governments, because they are closer to the people. I suggest that local government authorities utilise the funds that are made available to them to the best possible advantage of the people they are intended to benefit.

  1. would urge the Minister again, as I have done when he has previously put up proposals to try to minimise road accidents - as I said before, I commend that objective very warmly - to consult both State traffic authorities and local government authorities before any program of work to improve road safety throughout Australia is decided upon. I say this quite seriously and sincerely because I believe there is a need for co-ordination in road safety programs as the toll from road accidents throughout this Commonwealth grows. Co-ordination will serve the best interests of the objective that the Minister aims at achieving. I have been requested to leave a few minutes available for some other speaker, and I am happy to accede to that request.
Dr GUN:
Kingston

– Tonight I raise a matter that I think will be of the utmost importance to the Australian electorate at the time of the forthcoming Senate election. I want to refer to a matter that will have very serious implications for the Australian people and the Australian taxpayer in particular if the Australian people are saddled, after the Senate election, with a non-Labor majority in the Senate which takes the same attitude as the present non-Labor majority in the Senate has taken in relation to land acquisition in the Australian Capital Territory. It is possible that the Australian taxpayer will find himself up for a bill of $200m. It should be remembered that I am referring to the attitude of an Opposition which is urging the Government to save money. Despite the protestations of the non-Labor majority in the Senate about saving money, it is trying to force the Australian

Government into a position where we could be liable to pay up to $200m to the owners of private property in the Australian Capital Territory which the Government wishes to acquire for urban development.

This matter arose out of a case which I raised last year in this House following the rejection by the Senate last November of the Land Acquisition (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1973. This matter arose out of a dispute over the Lanyon property, which the Government has acquired for the purposes of urban development of an area which will be known as Tuggeranong. It arose out of a decision by the Gorton Government in 1970 to purchase the remaining freehold land in the Australian Capital Territory and convert it into leasehold, as is the rest of the land in the Australian Capital Territory. At the time there was a Country Party Minister for the Interior. Under the Gorton Government an agreement was reached with the owners of Lanyon station on a payment of $ 1.875m. That was pursuant to a precedent that has been followed by governments of all political colours ever since 1910 for the development of Canberra that any increase in the value of land arising out of a decision by the community to develop the land should accrue to the community as a whole and not to the individual landholder. As a result the offer was made for the payment of $ 1.875m, which works out at about $2,000 an acre. I must say that even on rural prices that was in itself an extremely generous offer. In fact, stronger words could be said about it. But at least it was based on the previous precedents for the Australian Capital Territory, although, as I have said, the price offered worked out at $2,000 an acre whereas good rural land in surrounding areas is going for about $200 an acre.

Not satisfied with that offer the owners of the ‘Lanyon’ property have decided that they believe that they are the ones who should receive the unearned increment on this land and have put in for the figure of - wait for it - i$35m. As I have said, the offer made by the previous Country Party administration to the owners of the property was quite a reasonable one. In fact, it could be said that it was excessively generous. I think it could reasonably be expected to have been accepted on the basis of the precedents surrounding all previous cases of land acquisition in the Australian Capital Territory and also because the Lands Acquisition Act does say that regard shall not be had to any increase in the value of land arising from any proposal to carry out the public purpose for which the land was acquired. Surely that is a fair thing. I should have thought that most people in the community would have accepted the proposition that in any land acquisition for public purposes a fair price should be paid for the land.

Mr Cooke:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the subject matter of the speech by the honourable member for Kingston is presently before a court, that a decision has not been given on it and that the valuation of the property concerned, which he is discussing at this very moment, is in fact the subject matter of a decision by a court. I understand that the hearing has already begun and that no decision has yet been reached. I ask whether that means that this matter is sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not know whether it is before a court, but if as the honourable gentleman says it is before a court - I do not doubt him - the matter is sub judice.

Dr GUN:

– I do not propose to discuss the matter before the court. I propose to discuss, if the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) will be patient, a Bill that was rejected by the Senate last year. I refer to a measure introduced by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) which sought to rectify the present legislation and to clarify the situation so that the spirit of the Act, as has been practised and embodied since 1910, will continue to be practised. It would have carried on the spirit of the offer made by a Country - Party Minister for the property some 3 years previously. Why the colleagues of honourable members opposite changed their mind I cannot say. It would appear to me that the only reason the Opposition in the Senate had for opposing the legislation was that it was put up by a Labor Government. For the life of me I cannot see any other reason why that should have been done.

Mr Cooke:

– What about a just price for the land?

Dr GUN:

– I think the honourable member for Petrie might have a chance to say afterwards what he wants to say about this matter. I hope he will allow me to finish what I want to say. I think it is very important to consider what the outcome could be because if a precedent were to be set in this matter the taxpayers could be up for some S200m for land settlements in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government is being pushed by the Opposition to reduce its spending. I seriously ask the House and the Australian people to give very close consideration to this matter because if there is still a hostile Senate after 30 June and it takes the same attitude to this matter as the present Senate, the Australian taxpayers will find themselves up for $200m or something of that order. Of course, that cost eventually will have to be passed on to the people purchasing land for housing purposes in the Australian Capital Territory.

I believe this is an absolutely outrageous situation. One could justify saying to the people of Australia that there are certain things on which the Government has to spend money, but for the life of me I cannot see why we should consider giving money to property owners who already have substantial wealth and substantial assets. I can see no justification for it. I believe this is something that the people must bear in mind very closely when they cast their votes at the Senate election on 18 May.

Mr COOKE:
Petrie

– I will sit down in time to enable the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) to reply to the remarks of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), but I cannot let what the honourable member for Kingston. (Dr Gun) said go unchallenged. What he has not told the House is that the Bill that he has lauded is in fact a Bill which seeks to subvert a constitutional provision that obliges the Commonwealth, if it acquires property compulsorily, to pay a just price. The Bill that he spoke of virtually sought to set a different standard for the evaluation of the amount to be paid in compensation. It amounted to little more than confiscation without compensation.

Dr Gun:

– I rise to a point of order. The fact is that there is no suggestion of subversion of the Constitution. The question of just prices, to which the honourable member is referring, relates to the acquisition of land for a Commonwealth purpose in a State.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order involved. The honourable member will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Kingston.

Mr COOKE:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The facts of the matter are that the Commonwealth is constitutionally obliged to pay a just price. No one can cavil if a just price is paid. If property is required for governmental purposes and it is acquired compulsorily we on this side of the House say that a just price must be paid for it. The Government, on the other hand, wants to erect its own concepts of what prices are to be paid. The Opposition in the Senate objected to the Lands Acquisition (Australian Capital Territory) Bill simply on the basis that a just price should be paid. It is not a question of whether the Government thinks that its valuation is a proper one. It is not a question of whether the owners have made a claim which they think is the value of the property. There are procedures under the law dealing with the acquisition of property which lay down the means whereby the price can be determined by an independent tribunal, that is, by a court and there ought to be no objection by the Government, if it is going to be a fair and honest broker in this matter, if the case goes to court and the court then determines what a just and fair price ought to be for the property. Surely the honourable member for Kingston cannot argue that the Government ought to be allowed to acquire people’s property compulsorily and not pay a just price for it.

I did want to mention one or two other matters but, in view of the fact that the Leader of the House has indicated that he wants to reply to the remarks of the honourable member for Maranoa, I will leave them for another occasion.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke). I think it was a little unfair of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) to imply that the sittings of the House were arranged as a mark of disrespect to Anzac Day. This year presents great difficulties in relation to the sittings of the Parliament because of Easter and other holidays and the Senate election. When the sitting days were originally laid down it was indicated to honourable members that in making any appointments they should keep in mind that changes might be made in the sitting days laid down in the light of political developments. The Government has arranged for the House to rise at 4.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 April. I have been advised that only a handful of honourable members will not be able to be back in their electorates that night. If the honourable member for Maranoa has such an important engagement that he wants to keep it should not be difficult for him to find an appropriate pair.

We had to decide whether the House should sit in the week after Easter or in the week in which Anzac Day falls. The fact that the sitting of the House will be adjourned early on the Wednesday will reduce the sitting times that week by 6 or 7 hours. The House will adjourn early in order to enable honourable members to get back to their electorates that night. It is most unfair to say that there was any intention to show disrespect to Anzac Day. Quite frankly Anzac Day is just as important to honourable members on this side of the House as it is to honourable members on the other side of the House. We all know what Anzac Day symbolises. I just say to the honourable member for Maranoa that his remarks tonight did not do him justice. If he is involved in the way that he says he is involved and he sees me I will be pleased to ascertain whether I can arrange an appropriate pair for him.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 972

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Issue of Visas for Travel to Australia (Question No. 4)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has he or the Government given undertakings to any governments, or the representatives of any governments, for the issue of visas to citizens of those countries for travel to Australia without all normal immigration clearances, providing such visitor nominees are recommended or referred by their respective governments.
  2. If so, to which countries have such undertakings been given.
  3. On what grounds have these undertakings been given.
  4. What forms have the undertakings taken.
  5. Have any visas been issued pursuant to these undertakings.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) No such undertakings have been given.

Government Cash and Conversion Loan (Question No. 19)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the loan which closed on 18 October 1973 result in the long term bond rate increasing from 7 to 8i per cent and raise $266m.
  2. What amount of the moneys raised was subscribed by the Commonwealth Savings Bank.
  3. Did Reserve Bank deposits held on behalf of savings banks drop by some $50m in the week ending 24 October 1973.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. The long-term (20 year) security offered in the cash and conversion loan in October 1973 carried an 8i per cent interest rate compared with the 7 per cent rate offered on the comparable long-term security issued in the previous loan in July 1973. The October cash loan raised $266.7m.
  2. Details of subscriptions to public loans issued by the Australian Government have been regarded as confidential information by successive Australian Governments and by the State Governments on whose behalf a large proportion of the funds are raised. If a departure from this practice were to be made with respect to any individual subscribers then, apart from any questions of principle, a precedent could be established for publicising subscriptions - both large and small - which could have adverse effects on the Governments’ ability to raise loan funds.
  3. The amount of savings bank deposits held by the Reserve Bank decreased by some $48. 8m during the week ended 24 October 1973. Movements of funds into and out of these accounts would reflect many factors including movements in funds available to individual savings banks and the relative attractiveness of a range of alternative avenues open for savings bank investment as assessed by the managements of the savings banks.

Changes in Banking Practice (Question No. 23)

Mr Garland:

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

  1. With reference to the answer given by the Attorney-General in April 1973 in reply to a question asking whether the Attorney-General had carried out any examination of the recommendations of the Manning Report into the operation of the Bills of Exchange Act and, in particular, recommendations that the law relating to cheques be covered in a separate Cheques Act, what has been the result of the further consideration which has been given this and other recommendations.
  2. If the consideration is not yet concluded, when will it be.
  3. Will the Attorney-General ensure that full determination of these long outstanding matters is made in 1974.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

On 15 April 1973 and 20 August 1973 my Department received from the banks submissions relating to the changes in banking practice that will result from the electronic data processing of cheques and accounts, being changes that have a direct bearing on the form of the Bill. My Department has considered those submissions and has discussed them with representatives of the banks. Further discussions are to be held shortly. The honourable member may be assured that the preparation of the legislation will be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.

Pension Rates (Question No. 54)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the pension rate as a percentage of average weekly earnings for the quarters ending (a)

December 1972. (b) March 1973, (c) June 1973, (d) September 1973 and (e) December 1973.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Immediately before the last House of Representatives elections on 2 December 1972 the standard (or single) rate of pension was $20.00 a week, representing 20.0 per cent of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings per employed male unit for the December quarter 1972. As a result of legislation enacted early in 1973, pension rates were increased, retrospectively, from the first pension pay-day after the elections. The standard (or single) rate was increased to $21.50 a week or 21.5 per cent of average weekly earnings per employed male unit for the December quarter 1972. (b), (c), (d) and (e) The standard (or single) rate of pension payable during the four quarters of 1973 and the percentage of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings per employed male unit (A.W.E.) it represented for each of those quarters, respectively, were:

Inflation Rate (Question No. 56)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department examined the study by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research which forecasts an annual inflation rate of 20 per cent.
  2. If so, will he make public the conclusions of his Department’s examination.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. In the Australian Economic Review, 4th Quarter 1973, produced by the Intsitute of Applied Economic and Social Research, the claim is made that, under certain conditions, ‘the Australian economy will move to an inflationary situation as serious as that posed by the Korean War boom’. The Institute provides no detailed analysis of how it arrived at this forecast. The forecast has been noted, but no study has been undertaken as a consequence of it.
  2. See answer to (1).

Government Cash and Conversion

Loan Issues (Question No. 57)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did the Reserve Bank or the Commonwealth Bank subscribe to the Government cash and conversion loan issues during 1973.
  2. If so, what proportion of the loan issues were subscribed by both organisations.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) See the answer to Question 19, part (2).

Imports (Question No. 58)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does he expect imports to increase by some $800m during 1973-74.
  2. If not, what are the latest estimates prepared by his Department.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Because the factors influencing trends in imports are always changing, estimates of imports are subject to continuous review. However, if the recent rate of importing is maintained during the remaining months of the financial year, the increase in imports in 1973-74 over the preceding financial year is likely to be in excess of $800m.

Budget Outlays and Receipts (Question No. 59)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What are the estimated (a) Budget outlays and (b) Budget receipts for 1973-74 and what is the percentage variation in each case from the original estimates provided on 21 August 1973.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (b) It is now expected that both Budget outlays and Budget receipts in 1973-74 will be rather higher than estimated at the time the Budget was being prepared. The preparation of revised Budget estimates is a major exercise which requires each Department to reassess its rate of expenditure, or, in the case of the revenue collecting agencies, the rate of inflow of revenue, in the light of developments since the Budget was brought down. However, the estimates cannot be subjected to the rigorous examination required for budget estimating purposes and for that reason, except in very special circumstances (such as the accession of a new Government with consequential significant changes in policies), it has not been the practice to publish revised estimates during the budget year.

Average Weekly Earnings (Question No. 60)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated percentage increase in average weekly earnings for 1973-74.
  2. What were the percentage increases in average weekly earnings for (a) 1969-70, (b) 1970-71, (c) 1971- 72 and (d) 1972-73.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. For the purpose of estimating personal income tax collections in framing the 1973-74 Budget, it was assumed that average weekly earnings would increase by 13 per cent in 1973-74. Preliminary statistics are now available for the first half of the financial year and these show that average weekly earnings during that period were 14.5 per cent higher than during the ‘first half of 1972-73. It now seems likely that the rate of increase in average weekly earnings in 1973-74 will exceed that assumed at the time of the 1973-74 Budget.
  2. The percentage increases in average earnings over the past four financial years have been as follows:

Taxation Review Committee (Question No. 63)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many submissions have been made to the Taxation Review Committee.
  2. When does he expect to receive the Committee’s final report.
  3. Has he taken action to ensure that the taxation aspects of the Priorities Review Staff report have been submitted for the Committee’s examination.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. I have been informed that the Committee has received565 written submissions.
  2. When the Committee was established, no definite timetable was set down with respect to the submission of its Report. The Government is anxious not to constrain the Committee in its investigations into what is a complex and wide ranging area, and accordingly no time has been set for the completion of the Committee’s task.
  3. Yes.

Department of Immigration: Creation off Positions (Question No. 113)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the net increase in positions created within his Department and authorities for which he is responsible since 2 December 1972?
  2. How many of these positions were in the (a) First; (b) Second; (c) Third; and (d) Fourth Divisions?
  3. How many of these positions were (a) permanent; (b) temporary; and (c) exempt?
  4. What is the annual salary estimate to meet the net increase in positions?
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

Personal Income Tax Collections (Question No. 139)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does he expect personal income tax receipts to increase by $ 1,089m or around 27 per cent during 1973-74.
  2. If not, what are the latest estimates prepared by his Department.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Budget estimate for personal income tax collections (net) in 1973-74 is $5, 179m, an increase of $ 1,089m or 27 per cent compared with net collections in 1972-73. In making that estimate, it was assumed that average weekly earnings would increase by 13 per cent in 1973-74. Preliminary statistics now available for the first half of the financial year show that average weekly earnings during that period were 14.5 per cent higher than during the first half of 1972-73. It now seems very likely that the rate of increase in average weekly earnings in 1973-74 will exceed that assumed at the time of the 1973-74 Budget, but by how much remains uncertain owing to the unpredictability of, among other things, the outcome of the Metal Trades negotiations and the National Wage Case. It is, however, very likely that net collections of personal income tax will exceed the estimate at Budget time.

Annual Inflation Rate: Overseas Countries (Question No. 162)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he provide statistics to show the annual rate of inflation in (a) Great Britain; (b) France; (c) West Germany; (d) New Zealand; (e) the United States of America and (f) Canada, during 1973.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Increases in consumer prices in the following countries during the 12 months to December 1973 were:

Environmental Impact Statements (Question No. 167)

Mr Lynch:

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

What formal environment impact statement procedures are now operating pending the introduction of legislation.

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

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

I am unsure of what the honourable member means by ‘formal procedures’ but impact statements are required where a proposal has significant environmental consequences and Australian Government funds and/or constitutional power is involved.

Australian Citizens: Legal Status in other Countries (Question No. 287)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports of Australian citizens travelling overseas being disadvantaged by lack of knowledge of their legal status in other countries.
  2. If so, will he have published by his Department a concise summary sheet of the legal status of Australian citizens in other countries for issue with passports and at departure points from Australia.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Consultations are already proceeding at my request between my Department and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Attorney-General’s on the desirability of having included in the ‘Notice to Australian Travellers’ - which my Department issues to all Australian passport holders - a reference to the fact that Australian citizens abroad are required to observe the laws of the countries in which they happen to be and that, should they encounter difficulties, they should immediately contact or request access to the appropriate Australian Government representative in that country. I will arrange for y,ou to be informed of my decision on this matter.

Protection of Areas as National Parks (Question No. 360)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. When will he meet with State Ministers, as he has indicated he would, to discuss Commonwealth assistance to ensure the preservation of certain areas as national parks.
  2. In particular, when will he discuss with the appropriate State Ministers the Commonwealth’s attitude toward the Precipitous Bluff area in Tasmania.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. A meeting to establish the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers was held on 21 January 1974. I hope that regular meetings will now be held at which matters such as Australian Government assistance to ensure the protection of certain areas as national parks will be discussed.
  2. The question of the reservation of the Precipitous Bluff area as a national park is purely one for the Tasmanian State Government. As the area is Crown land, no question of financial assistance to acquire land is involved. I have expressed publicly my views on the question of mining in the area.

Yirrkala Schooling for Aboriginal Children (Question No. 492)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as alleged, that out of 340 school age children in the Yirrkala Aboriginal community on the Arnhem Land Reserve in the Northern Territory only 135 attend school.
  2. Is it also a fact that schooling for the Yirrkala children is not compulsory.
  3. If the position is as stated, will he confer with the relevant Minister to find a solution to the problem.
Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. In 1973 there were 3S1 Aboriginal children of school age in the Yirrkala area. The average enrolment at the Yirrkala Area School during 1973 was 307 and the average attendance was 213. Approximately 120 children had an attendance record of over 90 per cent. A large percentage of the non.attenders were within the pre-school and infants age groups. Included in the figure of 351 were 45 children at the newly formed outstations at Garrthalala (Caledon Bay), Gurrumuru (Arnhem Bay), Gurrka (Trial Bay), Gangan (Koolalong River) and Barniyala (between Trial Bay and Blue Mud Bay)’. Of these 13 children were still enrolled at Yirrkala Area School at the end of the 1973 school year.
  2. Schooling for Aboriginal children at Yirrkala, or at any of the schools formerly administered by the Welfare Branch of the Department of the Interior, was not compulsory until December 1973, when by amendment to the Northern Territory Education Ordinance, compulsory education was extended to all Northern Territory children between the ages of 6 and 15, subject to accessibility to school facilities.

  3. The problems of poor attendance at Yirrkala are being examined in conjunction with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the following actions are being considered:

    1. the setting up of local education committees to ensure that children will be more strongly encouraged through the deeper involvement of the local Aboriginal Council.
    2. the provision of a mobile school complex for the settlement of Garrthalala (Caledon Bay) which could cater for a large number of children living some distance from the Yirrkala Area School.
    3. the possibility of appointing a visiting teacher, based at Yirrkala, to assist an Aboriginal teacher in the outstations.

Schools in Vicinity of Perth Airport (Question No. 493)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What schools are within 3 miles of the Perth Airport.
  2. What schools are within the recognised approach paths and departure flight paths of the Airport.
  3. Are any of these schools insulated against noise.
  4. Does aircraft noise interfere with the functioning of these schools in any way.
  5. If so, are any plans under way to insulate these schools against noise.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

I have no detailed information available to me concerning schools in the vicinity of Perth Airport. Informal inquiries show that there could be some 40 schools in the area mentioned in part (1) of the question, and that in certain instances aircraft noise could be a nuisance. The question of reducing the nuisance by insulation or similar measures is probably a matter for the school authorities. If the honourable member has knowledge about the extent of the problem, I suggest that he should approach my colleague the Minister for Transport for his advice. I would be pleased to assist, if needed, in any future discussions.

Government Departments: Use of Electric Cars (Question No. 532)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. When did he write to 8 other Ministers asking them to investigate and consider buying electric cars for their departments.
  2. Which of these Ministers have replied and what was the nature of their replies.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. I wrote to the 8 Ministers concerned on 18 December 1973.
  2. The following Ministers have replied: Minister for Transport, Minister for Defence,

Minister for Housing and Construction, Postmaster-General, Minister for the Northern Territory and Minister for Science.

Two Ministers advised that their departments would investigate the question of buying electric cars and that they would notify me of the results of the investigations in due course.

Three other Ministers replied that in the short term no extension of the existing use was likely, but in the long term, increased use would be likely to follow if performance and cost limitations were overcome.

One Minister considered that the initial cost disadvantage of electric vehicles tends to be offset by lower operating cost, longer life and reduced air and noise pollution.

Other matters raised in the replies related to the necessity to initiate research into the impact of electric vehicles; the need to carry out a test and evaluation program of electric vehicles available; the co-ordination of departmental investigations, and the need to develop suitable tender invitations which would state the number of vehicles which might be electrically powered.

Scenic Reserves (Question No. 533)

Mr Snedden:

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

Has he received representations from the Conservation bodies seeking to have more than 30 regions in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales declared as scenic reserves; if so what action has the Government taken on these representations.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

I have received many representations from individuals and organisations suggesting that areas of the States referred to be reserved for national park or nature reserve purposes. The power for such action generally rests with the respective State authorities. The Australian Government is however assisting in the realisation of some proposals by providing $500,000 this financial year for acquisition of land in the States for nature conservation purposes.

In the absence of specific detail in the right honourable member’s question I am unable to provide specific comment on the conservation proposals he has in mind.

Defence Forces (Question No. 7)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many units in the Defence Forces have been disbanded or reduced in strength since the Government came into office.
  2. What is the present (a) establishment and (b) strength of all units.
  3. How many equipment decisions have been deferred or postponed, and how many decisions to purchase have been made.
  4. What are the particulars of each decision.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. Since the Government came into office the following units have been disbanded or reduced:

Navy - The only 2 Fleet units to be paid off were HMAS Paluma (replaced by HMAS Flinders) and the ageing fleet transport HMAS Sydney.

Army - There have been major changes in the organisation of the Army following the Report of the Hassett Committee, the end of Australian military involvement in Vietnam and the cessation of National Service. During this process of change, units have been consolidated and manpower re-allocated. The net effect has been to remove some 88 units from the Order of Battle and will be to reduce the strength of 131 units. From 1 December 1972 to 31 January 1974, the volunteer strength of the Australian Regular Army has increased from 29,669 to 30,719.

Air - The number of Units/Squadrons disbanded is 9, of which 6 were part-time University Squadrons. Nineteen Units/Squadrons were reduced in establishment as a result of finding economies “n the use of manpower.

  1. The total strength as at 31 January 1974 and the authorised manning levels set for 30 June 1974 are given below:
  1. Equipment decisions deferred or postponed - 2. Decisions to purchase- 4.
  2. Equipment decisions deferred or postponed:

Public Service Board: Placement of Aborigines (Question No. 34)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the (a) number and (b) classification of officers in the Public Service Board who are responsible for the recruitment, placement or employment of Aborigines in the Australian Public Service.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I am advised by the Public Service Board that in 1971 officers in each of the Board’s State Offices were designated Special Placements Officers. The role of these officers, in addition to other responsibilities, has been to:

Liaise with Vocational Officers of the Department of Labour referring Aborigines to the Service for employment;

Personally handle Aboriginal applications, including the selection of suitable placements for Aboriginal candidates successful in the various selection processes;

Act as a contact point for Aborigines seeking employment and for departments or organisations inquiring about Aboriginal employment;

Provide information to the Board’s Central Office on the difficulties faced by Aborigines in obtaining employment in the Australian Public Service.

At present the number and classifications of these officers are as follows:

Number Classifications 5 Assistant Inspector Class 7 ($9876-10538) 3 Clerk Class 6 ($8886-9548) 1 Clerk Class 5 ($7899-8639)

In the course of their normal duties, other officers of the Board’s Central and State Offices are also associated with matters relating to the recruitment, placement or employment of Aborigines in the Australian Public Service from time to time.

Industrial Accidents (Question No. 87)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

Will he up-date the industrial accident statistics provided in response to my question No. 53 of 28 February 1973.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

As the honourable member will know, the industrial accident statistics are estimates compiled in co-operation with the State Labour Departments and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They are based on State statistics of claims finalised under Workers’ Compensation Insurance and on special extractions compiled by the Bureau from data supplied by the States. I expect to be able to let the honourable member have up-to-date estimates shortly.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Creation off Positions (Question No. 123)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What is the net increase in positions created within his Department and authorities for which he is responsible since 2 December 1972.

  2. How many of these positions were in the:

    1. First
    2. Second
    3. Third, and
    4. Fourth Divisions.

  3. How many of these positions were:

    1. Permanent
    2. Temporary, and
    3. Exempt.
  4. What is the annual salary estimate to meet the net increase in positions.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The number of positions established in the Postmaster-General’s Department is determined by traffic and management requirements. The growth in permanent positions in recent years has been:

  1. The specific answers to the questions asked are:
  2. A net increase of 7,604 positions for the period 2 December 1972 to 28 February 1974 within the Department alone.

Note: Statistics relating to positions within ‘Authorities’ have not been included since the Australian Broadcasting Control Board (which was the only applicable Authority) was organisationally relocated in the Department of the Media on 30 January 1973.

(2)

  1. (a) All of the above positions are permanent positions having been created under Sec tion 29 of the Public Service Act and include those positions which have an embargo on permanent filling under Section50 of the Public Service Act.

    1. Temporary positions are provided only in special circumstances to accommodate temporary staff; these are provided mainly for seasonal assistance of short-term duration. Any requirement for short-term positions for permanent staff is met by creation of positions with a Section50 embargo (referred to in (a) above.) Consequently none of the positions covered in answers (1) and (2) is temporary.
    2. There are no exempt positions, as such, in the Department. Exempt staff are employed, as required, under the special provisions of Section 8a of the Public Service Act, but with the notable exception of certain Lines Staff they are, in the main, employed in positions which have been created under Section 29 of the Act.

With regard to Lines Staff, each year the Public Service Board approves a Lines Staff quota which is the upper limit set for the employment of permanent and exempt Lines Staff during that year. Although there are staffing fluctuations in a field work-force of this nature, when taken overall the picture remains fairly static. For example, at 31 December 1972, the total staff employed under the lines quota was 16,289. Of these, 9,650 were covered by established positions, while the balance of 6,639 were employed under exemption without establishment coverage. The most recent statistics for this employment group have yet to be finalised but, as at 30 September 1973, the total staff employed in this category had decreased to 16,151 of which 9,611 were covered by established positions and 6,540 were not.

In summary, there are no exempt positions provided in the Department, and the number of staff employed under exemption without position coverage has remained fairly static since December 1972, with a very slight downward trend being evident.

  1. The annual cost of salaries for the net increase of 7,604 positions established since 2.12.1972 is approximately $38.015 million.

Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution (Question No. 132)

Mr Lynch:

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

  1. Which of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution have not been incorporated in the Government’s National Water Policy.
  2. Will he make available the comprehensive guidelines and criteria for financial assistance which have been drawn up to govern the utilisation, recreational and wildlife users of water.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. The report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and the Statement ‘A National

Approach to Water Resources Management’ are quite different types of document. The latter is a broad statement of policies, and an outline of the main components of the program in which the Australian Government expects to be involved. The report of the Senate Select Committee was one of a considerable number of documents which provided useful background in the compilation of the statement on water management, and as far as general policies and programs, as distinct from machinery matters, are concerned, I believe the 2 documents are generally compatible. However, no action has been taken to set up the National Water Commission proposed by the Senate Select Committee - it is hoped that the policies and programs outlined in the Government’s statement can be achieved through normal consultative processes. In addition, some of the Committee’s financial proposals require careful examination in the context of what is commonly referred to as the polluter pays principle.

It should be noted also that some of the recommendations in the report refer, quite appropriately, to action that might be taken by State and other authorities.

  1. I am not aware of the guidelines and criteria that have been referred to, apart from the statement on Water Management referred to above, which could perhaps be described in those terms. We will, however, be continually working at the interpretation and elaboration of the policy statement, with a view to providing more specific guidelines for the management of our water resources. I am hopeful that in this we will have the assistance of State and other authorities with responsibilities and interests in this field.

Medical Practitioners: Taxation Returns (Question No.150)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has any suggestion or directive been made to the Australian Taxation Office seeking special examination of the taxation returns of medical practitioners.
  2. If not, has his attention been drawn to the type of information being sought by the Taxation Office in lengthy questionnaires, such as a dissection of business mileages (a) between residence and hospitals, (b) between hospitals, (c) in connection with private practice and (d) other (specify).
  3. If no directive has been issued, will he ascertain how many medical practitioners in South Australia have received questionnaires relating to their (a) 1972-73 and (b) 1971-72 returns.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. No. The Commissioner of Taxation has the sole responsibility for the administration of the taxing laws.
  2. The Commissioner has advised that itis customary to issue a questionnaire where the information contained in the return is insufficient to determine the extent to which travelling expenses were incurred in the derivation of assessable income. Inquiries of this kind are not limited to members of the medical profession.
  3. Questionnaires have been sent to 375 individuals and SO partnerships engaged in medical practice in South Australia in respect of the 1972-73 income year. Figures for the preceding income year are not available.

Taxation Refunds (Question No. 170)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice;

  1. Is it a fact that the distribution of taxation refunds for 1972-73 has been much slower than in previous years.
  2. Is is also a fact that the processing of taxation assessments for 1972-73 has been considerably slower.
  3. If the position is as stated- (a) what is the reason for the delay and(b) what steps has he taken to speed up these operations.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Income tax returns have, on the whole, been lodged at a slower rate this financial year than they were in the previous year. However, apart from the month of July, assessments made and which issued to taxpayers have exceeded the number made and issued in the same periods during the preceding year. As at March 1 1974, refund cheques which had issued to taxpayers totalled nearly 4.5 million or over 90,000 more than to the same date in the preceding financial year. Income tax returns of individual taxpayers assessed to the same date, including those in which no refund is involved, exceeded 5.6 million or nearly 12,000 more than in the previous year for the same period.

Accordingly, the answer to the honourable member’s questions are:

No.

No.

Not applicable.

Department of Secondary Industry:

Consumer Protection (Question No. 221)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Second ary Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 717 of 31 May 1973 in which the Minister for Science indicated that the Department of Secondary Industry undertakes activities which bear directly or indirectly on consumer protection, which section or sections of his Department are involved in such activities?
  2. What are these activities?
  3. How many officers of his Department are involved in this work?
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Steps to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of Australian manufacturing industry can bring important benefits to the consumer in terms of the quality, supply and price of goods required to satisfy consumers’ material needs. The activities of the Department of Secondary Industry in promoting the efficiency and competitiveness of industry can therefore have important implications for consumer protection. All areas of the Department are involved in activities of this kind.

Particular Departmental activities which have a more direct bearing on consumer protection relate to the work1 of the Standards Association of Australia and the Industrial Design Council of Australia. The Standards Association of Australia (which incorporates consumer representatives and undertakes consumerorientated work in both the standards drafting and quality assurance fields) is currently expanding its consumer activities in co-ordination with the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards. The Industrial Design Council of Australia undertakes design promotion programs directed at improving the quality and efficiency of products and processes and thus helping to meet consumers’ needs.

The Department has also adopted the practice of including at least one consumer representative on each of the industry panels established to provide the Government with advice on the problems concerning particular sectors of industry and on matters affecting their future development.

  1. It is not possible to provide a meaningful figure of the number of officers of the Department who are engaged on work which has a bearing, directly, on consumer protection.

South Pacific Conference: French Nuclear Tests (Question No. 241)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. At the recent South Pacific Conference meeting was a resolution adopted by ten votes to five condemning the French nuclear testing in the Pacific.
  2. If so, what reasons were given for their opposition by each of the five members voting against the resolution, other than the concern of some that acceptance might provoke the withdrawal of France from the organisation.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question: <1) Yes.

  1. The five delegates who voted against the resolution were from American Samoa, the British Solomon Islands and Protectorate, New Caledonia, New Hebrides and Niue. The American Samoan delegate commented that delegates ‘must consider the welfare . of those people living under a French Government’. The New Caledonian delegate said he would not be a party to accusing France by name’. The British Solomn Islands and Nieu delegates did not give their reasons for voting against the resolution.

The New Hebrides, being a Condominium, is represented by two delegates, one from the British and one from the French administrations, but has only one vote. As the delegate representing the French administration was absent at the time of the vote, the delegate representing the British administration at first abstained from voting. When asked by the Chairman to record a vote he voted against, explaining that he was in a ‘very difficult situation’.

Federal Ombudsman (Question No. 242)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Has the Attorney-General appointed an expert committee to advise him on the establishment of a Federal Ombudsman.
  2. If so, when was the committee appointed.
  3. What is its membership and terms of reference.
  4. Has the commitee presented a report to the Attorney-General.
  5. If so, when did the Attorney-General receive it and when will it be tabled.
  6. If not, when is it expected that a report will be received. ‘
  7. Is it a fact, as stated by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, 10 months ago in the House of Representatives, that this matter is high on the Government’s list of priorities.
  8. If so, why has there been such a delay in finalising this election promise.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. to (6) The Attorney-General did not appoint an expert committee to advise him on the establishment of a Federal ombudsman. The Committee on Administrative Discretions, comprising Sir Henry Bland as Chairman, Professor H. Whitmore and Mr P. H. Bailey, which was appointed by the previous Government presented an interim report in January 1973 on the matter of an Australian ombudsman. That report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 29 May 1973. The final report of the Bland Committee, -which contained further recommendations relating to the establishment of an ombudsman, was tabled on 25 October 1973.
  2. Yes.
  3. The heavy legislative program during the last Budget Sittings of the Parliament prevented the drafting of the necessary legislation being completed. Drafting of the legislation is proceeding with a view to the Bill being introduced during the current sittings of the Parliament.

Electrical Goods Exported and Imported (Question No. 266)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What was the proportion and value of imported electrical goods as against electrical goods exported for the last 10 years.
  2. What was the share of the domestic market of imported electrical goods for the same period.
Dr Cairns:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. As the term ‘electrical goods’ is capable of differing interpretations the statistics in the following tables have been confined to commodities included in

Division 72, Electrical Machinery, Apparatus and Appliances’ of the Australian import and export commodity classifications. Attention is drawn to the fact, however, that Division 72 does not include all commodities which could be described as electrical. Exceptions include automatic data processing and other office machines, sound reproducing and recording equipment and record players.

  1. Statistics of the domestic market for broad commodity groupings such as ‘electrical goods’ are not compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, the information in the following table may be of assistance. It shows in the first column total recorded Australian production of commodities for approximately the same range of goods as are included in Division 72 for which import and export statistics are shown above. The recorded Australian production values are derived from information collected in the annual manufacturing censuses in respect of specified commodities whose coverage, however, is to some extent deficient. It should further be noted that some electrical goods produced in Australia incorporate imported parts, components, etc., and the recorded Australian production values include a measure of duplication - for example, electric motors produced by some manufacturers, the values for which are included in recorded Australian production, are also included in the value of completed refrigerators, washing machines, etc., produced by other manufacturers.

Northern Australia: Prawning Grounds (Question No. 276)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation undertaking a research program relating to prawning grounds in northern Australia.
  2. – If so, (a) what is the purpose of the program, (b) what progress has been made with it and (c) when is it expected that the project will be completed.
  3. Is it likely that a report will be prepared for the Government following the investigation; if so, does he intend to table the report.
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) The purpose of the Northern Prawn Project is to carry out that scientific work which is necessary for the proper development and management of prawn resources of northern Australia.

    1. Population and migration studies of several prawn species have been conducted and the basis has been laid for an annual stock prediction system for some of the banana prawn fisheries in the north. This service will continue to assist industry with the logistics of its operations and will also help Government authorities responsible for management of

The second column of the table shows for each year the total of recorded Australian production plus imports less exports as a broad indication of the size of the gross domestic market, and the third column of - the table shows imports as a percentage of the second column. prawn fisheries. Environmental studies of the Gulf of Carpentaria have been completed and a numerical model developed of the tides and tidal currents of the Gulf. A new area potentially capable of sustaining a banana prawn fishery has been located in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf.

  1. Some parts of the Northern Prawn Project have been concluded but other parts will continue indefinitely in order to monitor the state of the prawn stocks for the benefit of industry and management.

    1. Two-monthly information circulars are available to Government and industry and will be made available to the honourable member by CSIRO if be so desires. As sufficient material accumulates, scientific papers will be published. More popular articles are published from time to time in industry journals and the Press.

Canberra Bay Holiday (Question No. 335)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What will be the total cost, taking into account (a) ordinary salary rate and (b) overtime, to the various Departments associated with the Parliament as a result of the Parliament sitting on the Canberra Day holiday.
  2. What would be the cost of an extra day’s sitting, such as the proposed sitting during the Easter break, to the same Departments.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Figures supplied by the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Joint House Department, and the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, indicate that the estimated additional cost of salaries, overtime and meal allowances to those Departments as a result pf the Parliament sitting on the Canberra Day holiday, Wednesday, 13 March 1974, was about $23,900. Against this amount should be offset the cost of an uncertain number of senators and members returning to their electorates for the day had the Parliament not sat.
  2. These five Departments have also advised that an extra day’s sitting of comparable duration on the Tuesday following the forthcoming Easter break would cost the same Departments an estimated additional $4,000.

Post Offices: Costs (Question No. 336)

Mr Fairbairn:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What were the total annual stamp sales from the following post offices during 1973, or for the last 12 months for which figures are available:

    1. Coolamon, (b) Ganmain, (c) Grong Grong, (d) Howlong, (e) Mulwala, (f) Oaklands, (g) Tarcutta, (h) The Rock, (i) Urana and (j) Walla Walla.
  2. What were the costs of operating these post offices, and how were these costs made up, e.g. wages, maintenance, repairs, etc.
  3. What additional services to the public, such as collection of telephone accounts, sale of postal orders, sale of tax stamps, collection of wireless and television fees, bulk postage rate, income derived as agent for the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Defence Service Homes Commission, were carried nut from these offices.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The total value of postage stamp sales in 1972/73 for each of the post offices in question was as follows:
  2. The operating costs (that is, salaries and wages, allowances and provisions for leave, furlough, superannuation, lighting, cleaning, repairs and maintenance) in respect of these offices was:
  1. The full range of postal and telegraph services, including those you mentioned, were available at these post offices during 1972/73, and are still being provided,

Attorney-General’s Department: Intellectual Property Division (Question No. 346)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. What are the functions and responsibilities of the intellectual property division of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.
  2. How many of the 29 positions which were presented in the Gazette on 7 June 1973 have been filled.
  3. Which ones are they.
  4. Which positions have not been filled.
  5. Which positions have been filled by people from within the Australian Public Service.
  6. Which positions have been filled by people outside the Australian Public Service.
  7. Who are the people who have filled these positions and what is their background experience.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. There is no Division of the Department known as the Intellectual Property Division. There is an Intellectual Property Section of the Intellectual Property and Industrial Law Branch of the Federal Courts, Intellectual Property, Territories and Law Reform Division. The functions of that Section are the formation of legal policy in relation to intellectual property and for the administration and reform of the law relating to Intellectual Property’.
  2. Seventeen (17).

  3. (a) Advisings Division - positions numbered 5, 16, 32, 33 and 34.

    1. Business Affairs Division - positions num bered 3, 5, 8, 10 and 23.
    2. Justice and Family Law Division - positions numbered 8, 17 and 26.
    3. Federal Courts, Intellectual Property, Territories and Law Reform Division - positions numbered 8, 10, 12 and 25.

  4. (a) Advisings Division - positions numbered 2 and 35.

    1. Business Affairs Division - positions numbered 6, 7. 16, 24 and 28.
    2. Justice and Family Law Division - positions numbered 14, 16 and 19.
    3. Federal Courts, Intellectual Property, Territories and Law Reform - positions numbered 17 and 21.
  5. All of the positions which have been filled except two have been filled by officers from within (he Australain Public Service.
  6. Positions numbered 5 and 23 attached to the Business Affairs Division have been filled by persons from outside the Australian Public Service.

  7. (a) Mr E. J. Cooper was appointed to position No. 23. 1965-1967- Articled Clerks’ Course. 1968- 1969 - LL.B. (Queensland). 1970- 1973- LL.M. (Queensland). 1965-1967- Articled Clerk. 1969 - Admited to practise as a Barister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Quensland. Since admission, continually engaged in private practice mainly in the commercial law field.

    1. Mr W. J. Beerworth was appointed to position No. 5. 1962-1964- B.A. (Sydney). 1965-1968 - LL.B. (Sydney). 1968-1969 - LL.M. (Virginia). 1971- 1973- S.J.D. (Doctor of Juridicial Science). (Virginia) Doctorate dissertation ‘Critical analysis of securities regulations in Australia and annotated drafts of a proposed model code for adoption in the Federal Parliament of Australia’.

May 1969-May 1971 - Associate Attorney with a New York firm of solicitors doing general assignments particularly in securities, corporate finance and international business fields.

Classification of Periodicals (Question No. 356)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

What is the classification for the purposes of registration as periodicals of all (a) trade union journals, (b) employers’ publications and (c) journals of political parties which are so registered.

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

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

  1. Registered newspapers and periodicals of trade unions remain in Category ‘B’ as the publications of organisations of employees.
  2. In accordance with amendments to the Postal Legislation, effective as from 1 October 1973, the registered periodicals of organisations of employers were transferred to Category ‘C as from 1 March 1974.
  3. Registered newspapers and periodicals of political parties are to be found in all categories, but most are registered in Category ‘B’. Four Country Party publications are classified Category ‘A’ as publications that consist in substantial part of news, information and articles of special interest to people in country areas.

As the Department could not accept further applications for registration in Category ‘B’ after 31 December 1971, the publication of one political party is registered in Category ‘C

Pensions: Means Test (Question No. 363)

Mr King:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the means test free age pension, what was the final date for the receipt of applications entitling an applicant to back-payment.
  2. What was the actual close-off date for backdating purposes.
  3. How many applications were received in each State on 2 January 1974.
  4. How many of the applicants in part (3) received back-dated payments.
Mr Hayden:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. 31 December 1973.
  2. 31 December 1973, subject to the provisions of section 36 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act.
  3. and (4) This information is not available.

Shelter’ Magazine (Question No. 380)

Mr Nixon:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. Is the magazine ‘Shelter’, which carries views that do not necessarily represent Government policy, the personal attitudes of the Minister for Housing and Construction, or the official views of the Department, printed by Summit Press.
  2. Is the magazine production paid for by the Government; if so, what is the cost.
  3. If it is not paid for by the Government, who is funding the magazine.
  4. Are the facilities and personnel of his Department used for compiling a magazine, written by outsiders and not printed by the Government Printer; if so, why.
  5. What is the circulation of the magazine.
  6. Are the contributors paid for their contribution; if so how much.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The first 3 issues were printed by Summit Press. Issues four and five were printed by Union Offset Co. Pty Ltd.
  2. and (3) The publication is paid for by the Government. Printing costs are $562 per issue, with type-setting varying with each issue and averaging around $90.
  3. The publication is an official one and is produced by the staff of the Department. Articles are either written by staff members or contributed by outsiders, including in issue No. 4 a State Minister for Housing. Many of the articles written by outsiders have been in response to articles written by staff members, demonstrating that the publication is providing a forum for the free exchange of views on housing issues.

Arrangements for printing are, as is customary, made by the Australian Government Publishing Service.

  1. The circulation varies monthly but is in the vicinity of 4,500.
  2. Some outside contributors have been paid at a rate of $35 per 1,000 words.

Aged Persons Homes Act: Grants Approved (Question No. 447)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How much money has been allocated to how many institutions under the Aged Persons Homes Act in each year from and including 1969.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The following grants have been approved under the Aged Persons Homes Act in each year from and including 1968-69-

Department of Social Security: Grants to Local Government (Question No. 462)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been allocated for various areas in his portfolio by the Australian Government to each of the States for local government bodies in the way of (a) untied grants, (b) tied grants and (c) loans during each of the last 5 years.
  2. How much of these amounts has not been taken up by local government bodies or not passed on to local government bodies by the various State Governments.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Acts administered by my Department under which local government bodies, together with other types of organisations, may receive subsidies, either directly or through the State Government, are the Aged Persons Homes Act, the Aged Persons Hostels Act, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act, the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act and the States Grants (Home Care) Act. However, specific sums are not allocated under any of these Acts for local government bodies.

The position of allocations not being taken up, or not being passed on by a State Government therefore does not occur.

Perth Airport: Sound Insulation in Homes or Hospitals (Question No. 474)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what aged people are housed or hospitalised within the flight approach and departure paths of Perth Airport.
  2. Can he also say if any of these homes or hospitals are insulated against noise.
  3. Does his Department have any plans to ensure that sound insulation is available if required.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The information sought by the honourable member is not available to the Department of Social Security. The Department of Social Security’s responsibility for capital assistance for accommodation of aged people does not extend to all of the areas implied in parts 1 and 2 of this question. The Department does, however, have a responsibility for aged persons homes in certain circumstances, and where the construction of an aged persons home is being subsidised by the Australian Government, consideration could be given to including the cost of sound-proofing in the capital cost for subsidy purposes.

Government Commissions, Committees and Inquiries (Question No. 514)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will he up-date information previously provided from time to time in answers to questions on notice indicating all commissions of inquiry, committees and task forces reporting to the Government.
  2. Will he indicate for each inquiry (a) when it was commissioned, (b) when reports have been issued and (c) whether the commission or task force is still in operation.
  3. Will he also indicate for each commission, committee and task force the number of personnel associated with it and their salary level.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In addition to the information provided in response to questions upon notice (Hansard 23 August 1973, pp. 383-397 and 15 October 1973, p. 2130), I have also furnished further comprehensive information in statements to the House at the end of each sessional period (31 May 1973, pp. 3002-3003 and 13 December 1973, pp. 4736-4740). I propose to bring that information up to date at the end of the current sittings.

Ethiopia and Eritrea (Question No. 151)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the Ethiopian Government requested the Australian Government and/or the United Nations for assistance to alleviate the suffering of the people of Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea.
  2. If so, when were the requests received and what has been the response.
  3. How long have the conditions of this region been evident to the Australian Government.
  4. In view of the continuing hostilities between the Ethiopian Government and the inhabitants of

Eritrea, can the Minister say whether a state of near civil war exists in this region.

  1. Can the Minister also say (a) whether there is any evidence of ethnic, racial or religious discrimination between those of Hamitic origin in the south and those of Moslem origin in Eritrea and (b) whether hostilities have resulted in the death of over 100,000 persons over the last 4 years.
  2. If the position is as stated, will the Australian Government bring the matter to the notice of the United Nations Committee of 24 of which Ethiopia is a fellow-member.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Government did not receive any request for assistance for drought relief operations from the Government of Ethiopia until the Australian Ambassador to Ethiopia, resident in Nairobi, visited Addis Ababa at the request of Senator Willesee on two occasions in November 1973. During those visits our Ambassador had discussions with Government Ministers and officials to determine the nature of the most appropriate assistance that Australia could offer. The Treasurer, when visiting Ethiopia in October 1973, indicated that Australia would be interested in assisting Ethiopia’s economic development and several possibilities were mentioned. No request was made at that time by the Ethiopian Government for emergency aid. The Government of Ethiopia has been in communication with the relevant United Nations agencies concerning the general situation, and relief needs, of the affected regions.

  2. Australia has provided emergency assistance towards the relief of famine in Ethiopia valued at over IA83O.0O0 consisting of:

    1. two shipments of wheat, totalling 4,030 tonnes valued with freight at approximately $800,000. One shipment left Adelaide on 9 February 1974, and the other is due to leave Australia during April.
    2. twelve tons of protein-enriched milk biscuits, valued with freight at $A23,000.
    3. $10,000 for the purchase of two land-rovers for relief work.

The Government is studying the possibility of longer term assistance.

The United Nations as such has not provided aid. However, the Disaster Relief Office of the United Nations at Geneva is playing an important role in co-ordinating donor responses. The World Food Program (WFP) of the FAO has contributed 15,000 tonnes of food grains. Australia is a member of the WFP.

  1. When the situation attracted the attention of the international press the Department of Foreign Affairs in early November 1973 sought further information. The Australian Ambassador to Ethiopia, resident in Nairobi, was instructed to visit Ethiopia and report on the situation. This he did on two separate occasions, in early and late November. On receipt of his reports the Government immediately considered ways in which Australia could assist.
  2. In the absence of a Declaration of a State of Emergency in Eritrea, which would indicate a serious deterioration in internal security, it could not be said that a state of near civil war exists in Eritrea.

  3. –

    1. Eritrea was fully incorporated into Ethiopia in accordance with a vote of the Eritrean Assembly in November 1962. Those Eritrean nationalists who oppose integration are a very small proportion of the total population of Eritrea and include Christians as well as Moslems.
    2. Information available to the Government indicates that the casualties on both sides have been far less than 100,000 during the last four years.
  4. The mandate of the Committee of 24 (properly called-, the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) as stated in UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 extends only to assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non.SelfGoverning Territories or other territories which have not yet attained independence. This resolution also declares that:

Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’

The situation in Eritrea is not regarded as a colonial one and hence the Committee of 24 would not be an appropriate forum in which to discuss the matter. The Australian Government does not therefore intend to raise the matter in the Committee of 24.

General Assembly of the United Nations Information on Nuclear Weapons (Question No. 376)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his answer to question No. 809 (Hansard, 11 September 1973, page 829), has the United Nations prepared a ‘catalogue showing:

    1. the possession by various nations of nuclear weapons and of machinery for ‘their utilisation and
    2. the capacity of all nations to produce such armaments now or in the forseeable future.
  2. If not, what efforts did the Australian delegation make at the recent session of the United Nations to see that it was compiled.
  3. Were these efforts unsuccessful; if so, why.
  4. If the catalogue has been compiled, could h be made available forthwith to members.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) & (3) In accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2817, the SecretaryGeneral prepared and submitted to the 28th session of the UNGA on 28 August 1973 a report titled “Scientific Work on Peace Research”. This report lists names of institutions and individuals engaged in peace research and contains a bibliography of their recent publications. The report includes the titles of publications which deal with the matters on which the honourable member is seeking information.

  1. The report has been published as UN document A/9130 and is available in the Parliamentary Library.

International Agreements, Conventions and Other Arrangements (Question No. 393)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Minister list all international agreements, conventions or other arrangements signed, ratified or in any other way entered into by the Government since his predecessor’s answer to question No. S44 (Hansard, 29 May 1973, page 2825).

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– Most of the information which the right honourable member now seeks was given by me to this House at the end of last Session against the right honourable member’s wishes. Nevertheless for the sake of completeness the Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

Repatriation Department: Increase in Positions (Question No. 75)

Mr Lynch:

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

  1. What is the net increase in positions created within the Repatriation Department and authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 2 December 1972.
  2. How many of these positions were in the (a) First, (b) Second, (c) Third and (d) Fourth Divisions.
  3. How many of these positions were (a) permanent, (b) temporary and (c) exempt.
  4. What is the annual salary estimate to meet the net increase in positions.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  2. (a) Nil, (b) 2, (c) 60, (d) 258.
  3. (a) 316, (b) 4, (c) Nil.
  4. The estimated cost for the 320 positions is $1,766,000 a year.

Department of Labour: Increase in Positions (Question No. 77)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. What is the net increase in positions created within his Department and authorities for which he is responsible since 2 December 1972.
  2. How many of these positions were in the (a) First, (b) Second, (c) Third and (d) Fourth Divisions.
  3. How many of these positions were (a) permanent, (b) temporary and (c) exempt.
  4. What is the annual salary estimate to meet the net increase in positions.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. The net increase in positions created within my Department and authorities for which I am responsible between 2.12.72 and 28.2.74 was 339.
  2. Of the 339 positions, 320 were in the Third Division and 19 in the Fourth. There were no positions created in the First and Second Divisions.
  3. The 339 positions were all permanent.
  4. The annual salary estimate to meet the net increase in positions is $2,588,000.

Country Apprenticeship Scheme (Question No. 79)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. How many persons were employed under the country apprentice training scheme during 1973.
  2. In which trades were these persons employed.
  3. What sums were paid in allowances during 1973.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) As from 1.1.73 the Country Apprenticeship Scheme was absorbed into the wider provisions of the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme (NAAS).

Final figures are not yet available as to the number of apprentices employed by country employers who secured assistance under NAAS during 1973. However, my Department estimates that the figure will be around 9,000.

Expenditure under NAAS on payments to country employers in the calendar year 1973 was $ 1.404m, and a further $0.88 lm was paid to apprentices as living-away-from-home allowances.

National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme (Question No. 80)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. How many persons were provided with training under the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme during 1973.
  2. What was the cost of the Scheme for 1973.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Final figures will not be available until after 1.10.74 because employers have up to 9 months to lodge claims. However, latest figures show that claims so far approved for 1973 are in respect of 16,010 apprentices for that year..
  2. $2.337m.

Department of Labour: Studies of Job Satisfaction (Question No. 81)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

When does he intend to publicise the results of work undertaken by his Department into the questions of job enrichment and job satisfaction.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Over the years my Department has published, principally through the Personnel Practice Bulletin, the results of its studies of job satisfaction among various industrial and occupational groups.

More recently my Department has prepared a number of summaries of research and experiments conducted outside Australia in the fields of job enrichment, job satisfaction and attitudes to work. These studies have been chosen to illustrate practical applications of the redesign of the job or the work environment. This material will soon be available in published form, both in the Personnel Practice Bulletin and in separately published booklets.

Research is at present being undertaken by my Department into a number of advanced organisational practices adopted by Australian firms, and is looking specifically at the areas of job enrichment and job satisfaction. It is intended that the findings of these studies should be published by my Department in conjunction with the Human Resources Panel of the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia. It is, however, not possible, at this stage, to give a precise date for the completion of these studies and publication of their findings.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Advertising (Question No. 83)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

What sum was expended on advertising by the Commonwealth Employment Service in 1973.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The amount expended on advertising by the Commonwealth Employment Service in 1973 was $51,850.

Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics: Report (Question No. 88)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

What action has he taken pursuant to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

A number of the recommendations contained in the report of the Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics have already been implemented. The remainder, many of which may require substantial changes in existing operating procedures and the co-operation of other organisations, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics, arc currently being examined by officers of my Department. Should the adoption of these recommendations be found to be feasible they will be implemented.

Overtime (Question No. 90)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

What was the average number of overtime hours worked per employee during 1973.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Regular monthly information on overtime in Australia is available only in respect of major private factories. The Department of Labour conducts a survey of overtime in such factories each month. The following table shows in both original and seasonally adjusted terms average hours of overtime worked in all such factories for each month of 1973 and an average for the 12 months.

Increase in Weighted Average Minimum Weekly Wage Rate (Question No. 92)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

What was the (a) actual and (b) percentage increase in the weighted average minimum weekly wage rate payable for a full week’s work, excluding overtime, as prescribed in Federal awards, determinations and collective agreements during 1973.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Preliminary figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that the actual increase during 1973 in the weighted average minimum weekly rates payable to adult males for a full week’s work (excluding overtime) as prescribed in Federal awards, determinations and collective agreements was $8.40. This represented an increase of 12.49 per cent.

The rates for adult females will become available shortly and 1 shall supply the honourable member with them.

Australian National Line: Stevedoring Operations (Question No. 94)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

Has he received a completed report from Mr N. K. Foster on the stevedoring operations of the Australian National Line.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Mr N. K. Foster has completed his inquiries into certain aspects of the stevedoring industry including the stevedoring operations of the Australian National Line and is finalising preparation of his report.

Trade Unions Members: Wages and Salary Earners (Question No. 96)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

What percentage of wage and salary earners were members of a trade union during (a) 1972 and (b) 1973.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that the proportion of total wage and salary earners who, at the end of December 1972, were members of a trade union was S3 per cent of persons (58 per cent of males and 43 per cent of females).

The figures for the end of December 1973 will probably not become available until July 1974. When they do become available, I shall supply the honourable member with them.

Wages (Question No. 98)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

Will he update the statistics provided in response to my question No. 269 of 14 March 1973 concerning the question of wages drift.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Table A below sets out the percentage changes in the Commonwealth Statistician’s series on average minimum wage rates for adult males and on average weekly earnings per employed male unit.

Because of significant differences in coverage the two series are not strictly comparable. For instance the wage rate series covers only adult males whereas the earnings series relates to all males. Further, the wage rate series relates mainly to ‘wages’ as distinct from ‘salaries’, while the average earnings series includes both. This means that differences in rates of growth of the two series may reflect differences in the rates of growth of earnings of adults relative to juniors or white collar workers relative to blue collar workers. In addition, the average earnings series is affected by overtime as well as by over-award payments and also reflects changes in the importance of different industries and occupations. Table B below sets out the annual percentage changes in minimum award wages and average weekly earnings (net of overtime), both on a per employee basis, from 1967-68 onwards as estimated by my Department.

Because the estimates of average weekly earnings and average minimum wage rates per employee are based on a number of tentative assumptions, the percentage changes shown must be viewed as approximate only.

Exchanges of Labour Administration Staff (Question No. 350)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Was it decided, at the Conference of South Pacific Labour Ministers in October/ November 1973, to begin a program of exchange of Labour Department staff between countries with comparable problems in this field.
  2. If so, have consultations been held concerning arrangements for such a program, and has such a program commenced.
  3. If consultations have been held, what form did the consultations take, and when and where were they held.
  4. In which of these consultations did Australia participate, and what part is Australia playing in any such program.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. The Conference agreed that exchanges of labour administration staff among countries with similar problems in the labour field would be helpful.
  2. , (3) & (4) The Conference was of the view that the roles and functions of labour departments should be related directly to local needs and should not necessarily be based on the wide range of functions and activities of labour departments in industrialised countries. Accordingly, it was left to countries which considered that exchanges of labour administration staff would be helpful to consult and to make necessary arrangements for any such exchanges. Australia will be prepared to co-operate in arrangements of this kind if they are considered helpful by other countries of the South Pacific Region. I might add that approval had been given prior to the Conference for exchange of officers between the Australian and New Zealand Departments of Labour.

Department of Transport: Increase in Positions (Question No. 100)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What is the net increase in positions created within his Department and authorities for which he is responsible since 2 December 1972.

  2. How many of these positions were in the

    1. First (b) Second (c) Third and (d) Fourth Divisions.

  3. How many of these positions were

    1. Permanent (b) temporary and (c) exempt.
  4. What is the annual salary estimate to meet the net increase in positions.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

South Pacific Region: Industrial Relations in Maritime Industry (Question No. 351)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Was concern expressed, at the Conference of South Pacific Labour Ministers in October/November 1973, at the effects of some trade union activities in the maritime industry in the South Pacific region.
  2. Were the activities of Australian trade unions referred to in this context; if so, did the Government give any undertaking to other South Pacific governments concerning this matter.
  3. Have consultations on this matter been held with Australian trade unions; if so, what form did such consultations take, when and where were they held, and who participated in them.
  4. Have there been any subsequent contacts or consultations with other governments in the South Pacific region on this question.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. The following extract from the Joint Communique adopted by the Conference refers to the matter raised by the right honourable member:

There was considerable discussion of developments in industrial relations in the maritime industry and the Conference expressed concern at the effects of some trade union activities in this industry in the Region. The economies of the islands and the welfare of their people depend on reliable shipping facilities at reasonable freight charges. Increases in these charges adversely affected both the cost of imports and the incomes from exports. This in turn affected the efforts of the governments concerned to improve the standard of life of their people and to reduce unemployment. The burden was particularly felt by the poorer sections of the community in the widely scattered islands of the Region. The Conference concluded that there was an urgent need to create greater awareness among international trade union organisations (in particular the International Transport Workers Federation) and among trade union officials in the Region, of the real problems and circumstances of the island communities in order to obtain their co-operation in working towards fair and reasonable conditions for those employed in the maritime services which will be consistent with the economic and social position of the peoples of the Region.’

  1. There was no specific reference at the Conference to activities of Australian trade unions in this context.
  2. There have been no consultations with Australian trade unions on this matter. However, I have sent copies of the Joint Communique to the ACTU and to other central organisations of unions and employers.
  3. There have been contacts with the New Zealand Government on some aspects of conditions of employment in the maritime industry in the South Pacific and I expect that further consultations will take place with the governments of New Zealand and other South Pacific countries on matters in this industry as the need arises.

Ethiopia: Assistance by Western Australian Doctors (Question No. 486)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Western Australian doctors, going to assist drought stricken Ethiopia by establishing a medical centre, have been refused financial assistance by the Disaster Emergencies Committee.
  2. If so, will the Minister investigate the situation with a view to seeing that assistance is required and may be given.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Disaster Emergencies Committee have recently allocated $15,700 to the group of Perth doctors.

Victorian Government: Aid to Pensioners (Question No. 442)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. Has the Victorian Government made an approach to the Australian Government seeking assistance for its proposal to provide $40 rates deferment for pensioners.
  2. If so, what is the attitude of the Government to the proposal.
  3. If no approach has yet been received, is the Government prepared to assist in this program to aid pensioners.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) As I indicated in an answer on 13 December 1973 (Hansard, page 4815), this is one of the matters which the Australian Government can discuss directly with local government bodies if the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974 is approved by the electors.

I stated on 21 March 1974 (Hansard, page 755) that it is intended that the referendum for the proposed law be held concurrently with the Senate Election, which it is proposed will take place on 18 May 1974.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 April 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740403_reps_28_hor88/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant