House of Representatives
17 July 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

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

page 269

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your 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 Dawkins, Dr Gun and Mr Viner.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth

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

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

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

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

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

Petitions received.

Social Security

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

That inflation which now besets so many countries today and in Australia is now at the rate of 14.4 per cent per annum is most seriously affecting and making life intolerable for those least able to take corrective action to maintain their position, namely, pensioners and those now retired living on fixed incomes.

Whilst the. Australian Government is giving effect to its election policy of making$1. 50 per week pension increases each Autumn and Spring such actions have been completely nullified by the stated rate of inflation.

This fact of life impels your petitioners to call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Make a cash loading of $5 per week to those pensioners who have little means other than the present inadequate pension eroded by inflation.

That each Autumn and Spring the increase in social security pension payments be not less than $3 per week to ensure that within a reasonable period the Government’s policy pledge to affix all pensions at 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings be achieved.

In order that money may go to areas of greater need the Tapered Means Test ceilings of income and assets be frozen.

To allay the concern of social security recipients as to their future when in 1975 the means test has been abolished and replaced by a National Superannuation Act that there be an assurance by the Australian Government that the said Act will provide a guaranteed minimum income to social security recipients based on the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation and that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, namely, the payment of 30 per cent of average weekly earnings adjusted from time to time in accordance with figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Stewart, Mr Lucock and Mr Thorburn.

Petitions received.

Whales

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

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

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

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

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

Petitions received.

Palace Hotel, Perth

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

We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore the Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel, St George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.

Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said Hotel from the owners thereof.

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

Petitions received.

Television: Pornographic Material

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 we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format.

That any alterations to the Television Program Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing Television Program Standards or to permit easier entry into Australia, or production in Australia, of pornographic material.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by MrO’Keefe and Mr Reynolds.

Petitions received.

National Health Insurance Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the existing National Health Scheme involves a vast amount of public money distributed by private Benefit Societies and that it is necessary to join one of these to qualify for the full Government Health subsidy.

That it is far too expensive and discriminates against lower income groups a lot of whom cannot afford the cost of membership or private medical treatment.

That it is inequitable, inefficient and does not satisfy the needs of the community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will urgently legislate for a Comprehensive National Health Insurance Scheme, financed from taxation, and covering everybody instead of only those who can now afford it.

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

Petition received.

Political Prisoners in Indonesia

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 many Australians believe that thousands of political prisoners have been detained for long periods in Indonesia, without trial, legal advice or cultural and educational activity, have been subjected to forced labour and often suffer from malnutrition.

That any such prisoners would face great difficulty in re-integrating into society on release.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Prime Minister to make known publicly to the Indonesian authorities when he visits Indonesia in April the concern of Australians about the plight of Indonesian political prisoners.

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

Petition received.

Industrial Solar Energy

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 world’s supply of fossil fuel is limited, and that research into alternative sources of energy is urgent.

That nuclear energy is a source of dangerous pollution, and contains inherent threats to the very existence of mankind.

That solar energy is increasingly acknowledged as a possible alternative, and deserves the type of research for which Australia’s size and climate are particularly suited.

That the problems of harnessing solar energy could well be solved if efforts comparable with our atomic energy research were applied to it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce its current spending on atomic energy research, and urgently set aside sufficient funds for meaningful research into industrial solar energy, and take whatever steps may be necessary to see that this research is begun with the shortest possible delay. by Dr Gun.

Petition received.

Universal Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed Universal Health Scheme is essential to the well being of all Australians, in so far as it will -

  1. Provide that all Australians irrespective of their means will have access to a high standard of health care.
  2. Every Australian will be automatically covered for doctors’ and hospital bills thus ensuring that citizens will no longer be burdened with additional psychological strains because of inability to meet the high cost of medical treatment.
  3. It is committed, in principle, towards the ideal that an individual’s contribution to the cost of health services should be based on his or her capacity to pay - that people who derive the most financial benefit from our society should give the most for its support.
  4. It guarantees freedom of choice so that every Australian will be able to attend the doctor or hospital of his or her own choice.
  5. In the long term it will take the politics out of medical care and will thereby allow dedicated members of the medical profession to return to the occupation of their choice - The care of the ill and the prevention of disease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will hasten to introduce this much needed scheme so that health care services in Australia can begin to function efficiently and economically.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Repatriation Department

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 sheweth that proposals have been made aimed at dismembering the repatriation system and transferring some of its facilities and services to other authorities and departments.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government does not allow the dismemberment of the repatriation system nor the transfer of any of its functions to other authorities and/or departments.

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

Petition received.

page 271

QUESTION

NURSING HOME BENEFITS AND PENSION PAYMENTS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Yesterday, the Minister stated that he was not prepared to back-date increased nursing home benefits so as to relieve patients of their accrued burden of debt for approved fees over and above their pension incomes. I ask: Will the Minister relieve patients of their worry about the future? Will he introduce legislation to provide index-related nursing home benefits so that increases can be made as from the date upon which wage and other nursing home cost rises cause increases in approved fees? Secondly, I ask: As this year’s Budget will be introduced a month later than usual, will the payment of increased pensions be delayed a month or will pensions be increased, as in the past, on the first pension pay day in October? Will the increases be at the new$3 level set in April?

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

– As I indicated yesterday in this House in the course of a debate, there are complexities which make it extremely difficult - probably impossible, and certainly not possible in any meaningful way - to backdate the subsidy benefits for nursing homes. The different dates on which wage determinations occurred, the adjustments in fees on a varying scale, and different dates for different nursing homes make it a rather daunting task. That is the first point. Insofar as indexing of fees for nursing homes is concerned, I am not aware that the succession of Liberal-Country Party Governments which preceded the last 2 Australian Labor Governments were persuaded that indexing was appropriate. There are difficulties about indexing. It would require waiting, for instance, to enable a proper allowance between movements in wages and movements in other costs. I repeat that we have waited a long while. I think the then Government increased benefits in 1972. By and large the benefits given to nursing homes in previous years were much less generous than they are on this occasion. The Government of 1972 and its predecessors saw no persuasive case for introducing indexing. It no doubt realised the difficulties of trying to do that. Pension increases is a matter for policy determination and it would not be appropriate for me to make an announcement at this point.

page 272

QUESTION

CYPRUS

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact, as reported in the media, that the coup in Cyprus which has resulted in the overthrow of the Makarios Government was engineered by the military junta in Athens? If this is a fact, what steps does the Government intend to take to make known to this Greek military junta this Government’s abhorrence of this act of overt military aggression?

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

– The position in Cyprus is clearer than it was when I was asked about it 24 hours ago. It is clear that Greek officers in command of the Cypriot National Guard ousted the constitutional Government of Cyprus. In other words, Greek officers have done to the Government of Cyprus what they did to the Government of their own country. 1 am not prepared to say that the usurping government in Athens is behind the coup in Cyprus. All 1 can say is that Greek officers overthrew both governments - their own country’s Government and the Government of Cyprus. President Makarios remains the president of Cyprus. He is the head of the constitutional Government of the country. The British Government, which has responsibilities in Cyprus flowing from the 1960 agreement between Greece, Turkey and Britain has expressed the view, through its Foreign Secretary, that the Greek officers should be withdrawn.

The Australian Government certainly supports that contention. We regret that the Security Council was unable to come to a decision on this matter before adjourning.

page 272

QUESTION

PRICE OF LAND IN CANBERRA

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. I refer to the Minister’s answer to a question yesterday when he said that the price of land in Canberra skyrocketed until the Labor Government came to power and that the price was now stabilised. Is the Minister aware that answers to questions on notice from my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Gwydir, have disclosed that since the Australian Labor Party came into Government the average delay for people wanting houses, family flats, and one-bedroom flats in the Australian Capital Territory has increased; that, compared to the year before, in 1973-74 the number of blocks available for town houses detached houses and flats decreased; and that compared to the year before -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to frame his question so that it will be much briefer.

Mr STREET:

– I shall be as brief as I can, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member is giving information, not seeking it.

Mr STREET:

– Is the Minister aware that the average cost of serviced blocks of land per unit for residential flat and town house sites has increased? If he is not aware of these facts, how was he able to come to a favourable judgment on the Government’s Australian Capital Territory housing policy? If he was aware of them, what possible justification does he have for being pleased about the results of the Government’s Australian Capital Territory housing policy?

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course, the honourable gentleman wants to make this matter a mixed grill. I was dealing with the question of land prices in the Australian Capital Territory and with the record of the previous government. I might say that the record in regard to the Australian Capital Territory between 1962 and May 1970 was creditable. Actually, I gave the figures only for unrestricted land in Canberra and these fell between 1962 and May 1970. In 1962 the average price of a block of unrestricted land was $4,500. By May 1970 this had been reduced to $3,000.

In the case of restricted land, in May 1970 the average price of a block of land was S900. Land at group sales was selling at $1,500 to SI, 700. That was the record. Unfortunately, a couple of important things went wrong when the previous Government was in office. The firing from the hip decision of the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, during a by-election campaign changed the system of land tenure in Canberra. As a result of the credit squeeze of 1970 and the subsequent Budget, the resources of the National Capital Development Commission were restricted.

Consequently between that period and 1972 the price of land in Canberra started to spiral. We inherited a very difficult situation. The former Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Enderby, took certain action to try to rationalise the situation because the price was skyrocketing. Urban problems cannot be solved overnight. The decision made in April 1970 and the restricting of resources in the Budget of 1970 to the National Capital Development Commission created a problem. We will solve that problem within the next year or two in Canberra. In the meantime land will be made available. At present the average price of land made available in Canberra is $5,400, unlike New South Wales where, in Sydney alone,’ the average price is $20,000.

page 273

QUESTION

TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Will the recommendations of the Kangan Committee on Technical and Further Education to establish a commission and to provide Si 05m be implemented from 1 July 1974? When is the necessary legislation likely to be introduced into the House?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable gentleman will recall that I tabled the report in this Parliament on 10 April and stated that the Government accepted the Kangan report in principle but would need to go into the details of its programs. That happened to be the day when the Parliament was dissolved. For a period of at least more than a month there was doubt as to which party would form the Government of Australia. Therefore, no further action was taken on the Kangan report. After that there was an interlude for the counting of the. votes before the Parliament could assemble. So I think it could be said that the double dissolution put the study of the Kangan report back by 3 months.

Honourable members will recall that Mr Kangan envisaged that the payments should proceed on 1 July. Because the Parliament did not assemble until 9 July it was perfectly impossible to make, those arrangements. Recommendations have been made to the Government on the Kangan report. The honourable gentleman will have noticed that the implementation of the Kangan report and the Cochrane report - the report of the Cochrane Committee on Adult Training and Re-training - has been commented on in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech as a kind of joint activity. I believe that, in order to implement the Cochrane report, Australian technical colleges will need to be. vastly improved, as Mr Kangan has suggested. At the present moment certain recommendations are before the Government. Those recommendations will be considered in conjunction with the Budget Papers. But I draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the terms of the Governor-General’s Speech.

page 273

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Is it true that the Labor Government cannot account for a substantial sum of money paid by servicemen into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, as disclosed by the Commonwealth Actuary in the fourth quinquennial report for the period ended June 1969? Is the Minister aware that the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association is establishing a fighting fund to brief senior counsel and obtain a legal opinion on the recovery of the surplus for the benefit of the people to whom it rightfully belongs - pre- 1 959 contributors, retirees and widows as at 30 June 1969? Will the Minister assure the House that the defence forces personnel will receive the same bonus from their superannuation fund as public servants? Will the Minister assure the House that the surplus, which belongs to the forces, has not been misappropriated, as has been suggested, for the purpose of paying a re-engagement bonus, which, if such action were taken, would indicate the complete and utter hopelessness of the Government’s recruiting program.

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

– In replying to the speech made by the honourable member for Darling Downs I assure him that there is no question of a misappropriation of funds. The honourable member was referring, of course, to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. I give him an unqualified assurance that there is no substance in his question.

page 274

QUESTION

LAND COMMISSION PROGRAMS

Mr RIORDAN:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. I refer him to the terms and conditions on which money is made available to the State governments for land commision programs. Has the Minister seen the statements by the Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, to the effect that these financial arrangements impose excessive and usurious rates of interest? If so, is that -a correct assessment of the terms and conditions imposed by the Australian Government?

Mr UREN:
ALP

– I have seen the statements made by the Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin. Unfortunately, Sir Robert lias told only part of the story. So let me make the situation perfectly clear. The Australian Government, in setting up land commissions to make land available to young people, does not want to sink into the subsidy quagmire of the previous Government. We are trying to make the land commissions business undertakings. Wc have said that the money will be made available at the long term Commonwealth bond rate and will be repayable over 30 years. We have said that for the first 10 years no capital or interest repayment will be required. We have said that the interest will be capitalised and become repayable in the latter 20 years of the loan, thus giving the land commissions the opportunity during the first 10 years to get off the ground and to get functioning without any debt burden. We have also said that representatives of the Treasury and the Department of Urban and Regional Development would have discussions with the respective State governments after 5 years for the purpose of keeping a watch on their cash flows and to see whether there should be any change in interest rates. A decision would then be made by the Australian Cabinet.

Sir Robert does not mention also that the purchase of open space land, such as land at the foothills of the Blue Mountains, on the Mornington Peninsula in the Dandenongs in Victoria will be subsidised by the Australian Government through its land commissions policy on the basis of $2 being provided by the Australian Government for every $1 provided by the State governments. So, although Sir Robert is trying to make some political capital out of these financial arrangements for the purpose of the Coogee and Goulburn byelections, these are very generous financial arrangements with the States and are designed to try to solve very difficult social problems.

page 274

QUESTION

MORTGAGE TAX DEDUCTIBILITY ‘ SCHEME

Mr VINER:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: What has happened to the home interest tax deductibility scheme? When will the legislation be introduced? Will it still commence as from 1 July 1974, if it is introduced? Will the Minister provide in the scheme for the deduction to be treated in the same way as concessional deductions for dependants are so that wage and salary earners will receive an immediate cash benefit in their pay packet, and thereby be relieved of the hardship they are presently suffering because of the high interest rates on home finance, rather than receive it once a year when they lodge their tax return, at which time it may be too late to be of real help to them?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member should know that this is an appropriate question to direct to my colleague the Treasurer. The question concerns Government policy. It is not appropriate for me to answer it now, but I would not be surprised if the strong advocacy contained in the honourable member’s speech will be taken into account by my colleague. That is about all I have to say on it.

page 274

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Overseas Trade. In view of the fact that the Minister is continuing to have discussions with and is continuing to receive information from trade union representatives, can he give the House any further information on the unemployment figures?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– In recent weeks other Ministers and I have had a series of discussions with trade union leaders, including representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and others, as well as leaders of industry and we have examined the unemployment situation very carefully. I think it would be useful for the House to know the nature of unemployment in the economy at the moment. Retrenchments up to 28 June of this year numbered 3,763 persons. Most of those - 2,092 of them - were in the textile industry, 458 in the footwear industry and 402 in the clothing industry. In no other industry in Australia has the number of retrenchments gone beyond double figures; in other industries the number is small and insignificant.

Mr Fairbairn:

– What about the Leyland retrenchments?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The retrenchments at the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd happened to occur after 28 June, and I have already dealt with that matter. Approximately 1,000 people were retrenched, 648 people were registered and, up to last week, all except 32 of them had obtained alternative employment, in most cases in better jobs than they had before. Of the 3,763 workers who were retrenched up to 28 June, 2,061 registered. The rest presumably found employment for themselves. Up to now 1,274 are awaiting replacement. These figures indicate that up to 28 June, unemployment is insignificant and is carefully under control. I do not pretend to predict what will happen in regard to unemployment in the next 6 months or 12 months but I can assure the House and everybody else that it will be the Government’s first concern - as distinct from the attitudes of other governments which have preceded us, in relation to whose anti-inflationary policies unemployment was a direct object -

Mr McMahon:

– That is a lie.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr McMahon:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr McMahon:

– May 1 take a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am asking the right honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr McMahon:

– Then, Sir, I withdraw the remark, but I would now like to take a point of order. If the honourable gentleman looks at the figures he will know that the statement he is making does not accord with the facts.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved. The Chair is not in a position to know what figures are applicable in this particular instance.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am distressed that the right honourable gentleman might change his opinion of me after that. However, he knows quite well, as I know, that the assumption underlying the views of all conventional economists at times like this is that unemployment is necessary to reduce the bargaining strength of unions and to reduce the rate of increase of money wages. The right honourable gentleman knows himself that governments which have preceded this one have substantially accepted that advice. I merely say that it will be the purpose of this Government to prevent unemployment occurring and to ensure that alternative jobs are available for those who happen to be unemployed as a result of general economic conditions.

page 275

QUESTION

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD: INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry by drawing his attention to the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister recently that indus.tires adversely affected by the Government’s action in cutting tariffs and lifting the quotas would receive some form of compensation. Will the Minister advise this House what form of compensation is available? Where does an industry apply for this aid? Has any so far been granted?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– The responsibility for the administration of the Structural Adjustment Board is with the Minister for Overseas Trade, not with the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, but I am happy to tell the House that a number of steps have been taken to make known the facilities that the Government hus now set up to be available to people who are affected when resources move from one aspect of industry, from one industry or from one part of an industry to another. Those resources may be on the management side, the capital side or the employee side. In general terms they can be said to be on the management side - such as guaranteed loans, consultancy grants up to 810,000, closure compensation and other measures.

An individual employee affected in that way may receive payment of his or her earnings for the previous 6 months for another period of 6 months, up to a sum of one and a half times average weekly earnings. That would be about SI 80 at present. The scheme as it relates to those people is administered by the

Minister for Labor and Immigration. I know that my colleague, the Minister for Overseas Trade, has made a number of statements on this scheme. I have made a number of statements giving it wide publicity. I have spoken to industrialists, management and trade unions, making it as well known as possible. I know that my colleague, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, has done the same. But, as recently as yesterday, in order to avoid the possibility that some people still are not getting the message that these very advantageous facilities are now available, my Department took steps to insert in many newspapers throughout Australia advertisements making known to both management and employees the additional services. This is something quite novel for Australia and it is one of the most imaginative steps this Government has taken. There have always been movements from one industry to another or from one part of an industry to another but there has been little attempt, certainly under the previous Government, to cushion the hardship that sometimes has been felt. This Government has taken very strong and firm steps to cushion the effects of the process that always takes place. I think that answer might assist the honourable member.

page 276

QUESTION

ABORTION

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that in Leichhardt, a suburb of Sydney, there is in existence a women’s medical centre operated by a group of women who previously ran an abortion referral service known as ‘Control’? Is the centre operating as an abortion clinic? Is the Minister aware that it has been alleged that the Australian Government gave a grant of $33,000 to the New South Wales Government to cover the first 6 months operation of this clinic? Is this a fact? If it is, does the grant of 533,000 herald a change in Government policy on abortion?

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

– I think the honourable member will realise that there is really no such thing as a Government policy on abortion. To answer the first part of the question, I am not aware that the group which has set up a women’s clinic in Leichhardt with Federal funding and at the instance and initiative of the State Health Department was formerly operating an abortion clinic or that such clinic was known as ‘Control’. However, should this group wish to provide legal thera peutic abortions at that clinic, presumably it would be entitled to do so in the same way as do other clinics within the New South Wales law. The last report I have from the clinic is, i think, something like 6 weeks old now, and at that stage the clinic had performed no abortions.

page 276

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Mr NIXON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is the viability of Qantas Airways Ltd seriously threatened by large increases in its wages bill? Is it a fact that the Minister is now considering heavy reductions in Qantas services throughout the world? Are the reports that are circulating true, namely, that the Minister has suggested that Qantas may have to shut down?

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

– What was, in my opinion, a very unreasonable award was brought down just recently.

Mr Whitlam:

– It was a sweetheart agreement, was it not?

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

– A ‘sweetheart’ award has been suggested. Very substantial increases were granted. Some were in excess of 60 per cent. The total cost of this new award would represent something like Slim for about 1,200 employees. The Government is not satisfied with it. We have until next week to determine whether there will be an appeal against it. The matter is causing me a great deal of concern because this type of award could be applied right through the industry. This award means that today a Qantas cabin crew member is receiving, in the main, a minimum of 51,000 a year more than a cabin crew member with any other airline in the world, and that is even taking into consideration Pan American Airways and converting United Stales dollars into Australian currency. We are concerned about it, but at this stage I am not at liberty to give the honourable member an answer to the whole of his question. However, I join with him in expressing concern at the way things are going

page 276

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Services and Property a question in his capacity as Minister in charge of electoral arrangements. Has his attention been drawn to complaints made as recently as last week that there is still ignorance in some quarters as to the outcome of the recent elections? Has his attention been drawn to complaints from the same sources that the election held on 18 May was the wrong election at the wrong time? Can he say whether these statements reflect shortcomings in the electoral arrangements for which he is responsible? If not, can he say whether there is any justification for the complaints and whether they come from :in authoritative source?

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

– I listened with interest and surprise to the honourable member’s question. The statements he mentioned do come from a most authoritative source. As a matter of fact they come from Senator Steele Hall who at this stage is the only liberal in the Senate, and therefore must be listened to. I also understand that there are no shortcomings in the electoral system, as evidenced by the splendid result of the election of 18 May. It has also been brought to my attention, as the honourable member said, that a certain honourable gentleman opposite said that he did not win, but he did not lose. I suppose that is why we have not seen him at the Cabinet meetings lately. As for being the wrong election at the wrong time, that all depends on the side from which one looks at it. For this Government any time is a good time.

Although the reason for the election on the last occasion was surprising, those who have seen the results and participated in the election will agree that so far as Senator McManus and the Democratic Labor Party are concerned it was the wrong time, the wrong election and the wrong result. But when one looks at some of the recruits to the Senate and some happy faces I see opposite one comes to the conclusion that they think it might have been the right time. I appreciate the concern that is expressed opposite as to the result of the elections. We have had one or two votes in this House and I do not know just what has happened but we have certainly been winning the divisions even though we are not supposed to have won the election. The Leader of the Opposition reminds me of that boxer in days gone by who, as he was going around the ring, said: ‘Throw the towel in.’ His trainer said: ‘He hasn’t laid a glove on you yet.’ He replied: ‘Well, keep your eye on the referee because somebody hit me.’

page 277

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Is he aware of the growing number of unemployed in the country areas of New South Wales? Have abattoirs and meat processing plants been seriously affected by a loss of overseas markets and laid off thousands of employees? Have textile and clothing manufacturers been seriously affected by the import of goods from cheap labour countries and put off staff as a result? What immediate steps are being taken by the Government to assist these employees affected by Government policy?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for that question. There is a falling off of employment opportunities in certain country areas. The Government is concerned.

Mr Anthony:

– Just recognising it, are you?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We have been aware of this for some little time. There are pockets of bad unemployment in certain regions in Australia, mainly in country areas. We know that. We are currently studying the situation to see what might be considered a desirable way of meeting the situation about which the honourable member talked. In regard to meat works, yes, a number of employees have been put off in meat works because of the falling away of the export meat market. That is true. That is not the Government’s fault, of course. We cannot make people buy our meat, and if they decide not to buy the meat then of course it could mean that until such time as the meat growers decide to put their stock on the Australian market for Australian consumers there will be a temporary hiatus which will create some unemployment. In regard to textiles, I may say that some areas of industry do depend to a large extent upon textiles for employment, especially of females, in country areas. However, that situation will be considerably helped by the decisions announced quite recently by the Deputy Prime Minister relating to quotas or restrictions upon the importation of textiles and clothing. I believe that at this stage we can say that the situation is well in hand. We are looking at it day by day - almost minute by minute - and I can assure the honourable member that we are not unaware of the problems.

page 277

QUESTION

HOUSING

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is it the Government’s intention to overcome the shortage of housing by directing building resources away from the building of office blocks and into the building of houses? In fact, is one of the intentions of the Financial Corporations Bill to enable directions to be given to non-bank institutions instructing them to lend for houses rather than for empty office blocks? Is it not a fact that some of the worst offenders in this area are the insurance companies? I therefore ask the Treasurer: What is the purpose of the Act if the Government is going to exclude the insurance companies from its ambit? Is it the Treasurer’s intention to pass legislation to provide for similar control over the insurance companies as well as the other non-bank financial institutions?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Bill before the House dealing with other financial institutions covers specific areas such as finance companies, building companies, merchant banks and credit unions. It excludes certain areas because they are already covered by other legislation. The Australian Parliament has full powers now to handle matters relating to life assurance companies. It does not need to encompass them within the Act. I think my colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, has been concerned for a considerable time, as I have, about the excessive development of city blocks and about scarce resources being used in that area to the detriment of other areas. One of the effects of the financial measures taken by this Government has been to bring about a substantial decline in the number of commencements of city development projects. As I indicated yesterday during the debate on a matter of public importance, we are concerned that welfare housing is not receiving the attention that it should receive and we are hopeful this year that we will be able also to remedy that situation.

page 278

QUESTION

INCREASES IN POST OFFICE CHARGES

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Does his Government intend to introduce increases in postal rates, telephone installation charges, radio and television licence fees, or any of them, or any other charges imposed by the Postmaster-General’s Department, during this sitting of Parliament? Is he aware that there has been very great speculation that legislation will be introduced next week for this purpose? Will he put an end to the speculation and say whether the. report is true or false? Were such recommendations for increases made in the Vernon Committee report? Has the

Prime Minister had the Vernon Committee report since last April and refused to make it public, notwithstanding the fact that we had an election on 18 May? Will he table the Vernon Committee report now and not, as would otherwise appear to be the case, keep it secret until after the results of the by-election in New South Wales next Saturday?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Government has not considered any of the matters that the right honourable gentleman mentions. There are no submissions on any of those matters before the Government. It is true that there has been speculation on these matters. The speculation on the matters, of course, preceded the election of the present Government, as was revealed well over a year ago by the former Postmaster-General, the present Special Minister of State. There were reports and recommendations to the previous Government, in which the right honourable gentleman was Treasurer, to put up all those charges. For instance, the letter rate was to rise to 9c or 10c a letter.

The right honourable gentleman mentions the Vernon report. The. Vernon Royal Commission gave its report to the Government after the Houses were dissolved. The Government accepted the recommendations concerning the restructuring of the Post Office into an Australian Postal Commission and an Australian Telecommunications Commission incorporating the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. That announcement was made in the. week after the report was received. The matters which the report deals with in a financial context - such, for instance, as the spurious debt burdens imposed on the users of the Post Office through the. former Government’s idea that the customers of the Post Office had to pay back the capital that had been notionally invested in Postal facilities throughout the century - have, not yet been considered by the Government.

The Government did put in train the printing of the report, which is a very bulky one. I am optimistic that that report will be. tabled during the current sessional period. The Government has followed the practice of tabling reports as soon as they are physically able to be tabled , doing so in fact before it has considered those reports. I repeat: There is no submission before the Government about the matters on which there has been speculation. The Government accepted some months ago the proposal for the restructuring of the Post

Office. The Parliamentary Counsel is engaged upon that task. The Vernon Royal Commission’s report will be tabled -

Mr Snedden:

– It is 3 months since you got the report. Have you not been able to have it printed in 3 months?

Mr WHITLAM:

– No.

Mr Snedden:

– It shows the state of the economy when you cannot get a printing job done in 3 months.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman has asked his question.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It was known that the House would not be able to sit until July. Therefore, the whole process was sent to the Government Printer. As far as I know, it has not yet been received. I am sure that the report will be available in print before this sessional period ends.

page 279

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister noted the interesting divisions in the business community concerning the Prices Justification Tribunal? Has he noted that one set of company chairmen in their annual reports blame the Tribunal for lesser profits whereas the other set reckons that the Tribunal is useless? Can these views be reconciled? Is it possible that the work of the Tribunal has been sum.ficiently successful to encourage the Premiers to make their recent tentative offer of pricing powers to the Australian Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Prices Justification Tribunal has been effective. I believe that all businessmen, whether they like it or not, concede that it has moderated the increase in the cost of the goods and services that their companies supply.

page 279

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the right honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. Yesterday, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) misrepresented me because he had forgotten what he himself had said. In the course of a debate on a matter of public importance, the honourable gentleman referred to a question that I had asked earlier in that day. You will excuse me, Mr Speaker, if I put in context what that question was about. The question that I asked concerned an estimate by the honourable gentleman of the cost of allowing as tax deductions the interest paid on home loans. This was said to be SI 20m. I asked whether there was any review of that scheme, and I suggested that if it would affect one million families who would get S250 each it would involve a total of S250m. It was in relation to that matter that the Minister said:

The total annual cost was supplied to me by the Treasury, as was the estimated number of home buyers who would benefit.

These are the relevant words:

It is a total misconception on the part of the Leader of the Opposition if he believes that every one of the one million home owners will receive $250 a year.

The allegation is that it is a total misconception on my part that one million home owners will receive $250 a year. I have a Press release issued by the Minister for Housing and Construction on 2 May 1974, during the election campaign. The dishonesty of the statement is disclosed when one has regard to what he said yesterday. In his Press release he said:

Mr Snedden does not seem to worry about the one million families who would lose $250 a year or $5 a week if Labor’s home mortgage tax deductibility scheme is not introduced.

In other words, it was the Minister himself who said in an election campaign that one million families would receive $250 each. Yesterday he said that I was under a misconception for believing it. I was under a misconception for believing that I could believe the Minister.

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

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the Minister seeking to make a personal explanation? Does he claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, Mr Speaker. I was going to retort to the claim by the Leader of the Opposition and refute the claim that he has been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister will have to seek leave to make a statement if he is not making a personal explanation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Snedden:

– I am willing to grant leave if leave is subsequently granted for someone on this side of the House to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is not for me to say. The Minister has sought leave to make a statement.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House would be the one to reply to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. I am seeking leave to make a statement and the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will grant it provided leave is granted for the Opposition subsequently to make a statement. I should like the opportunity to refute what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am concerned only with the Minister for Housing and Construction seeking leave from the Opposition to make a statement.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will probably either seek leave tomorrow to make a statement or to make it plain that I have been misrepresented.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. In this morning’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ under the title ‘Must devalue says McMahon’ there is this statement:

The former Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, said yesterday Australia would have to devalue the dollar by at least 124 per cent to beat inflation.

I made no such statement. On 2 occasions recently I have been speaking about inflation, about our overseas balances and what we should do in order to try to remedy some of the difficulties. I said that wage inflation is growing more serious. Some of the causes of demand inflation could well be at the decisive stage or turning point with demand pressure moderating at an accelerating pace due to the credit squeeze, upward revaluation and tariff changes. I went on to say that apart from the spectacular rises in prices and wages which dominate the economic scene today there are 2 other economic trends that must be the cause of concern. First there is the fact that we are now living well beyond our means internationally, and I gave figures relating to the fall in our overseas balances and what was happening to the balance of payments on current account. I then went on to deal with the oil crisis. I concluded with this statement:

The conclusion can logically be drawn that we are now inevitably on a collision course with disaster unless policy changes are made by the Australian Government and even though demand inflation may be considerably reduced.

I went on then to deal with the balance of payments, and I dealt also with the remedies. Turning to the question of variations in the exchange rates I said:

It is too early yet to seriously consider devaluing the Australian dollar. Our overseas reserves are still high enough at $3, 340m.

I went on later:

As our foreign exchange approaches $2,500m next year, devaluation becomes a real possibility. Devaluation of less than 1 24 per cent would have little value - it needs to be sufficiently great to both improve the returns to Australian producers and to re-establish confidence that the exchange rate will be used as an economic weapon.

That was the statement I made with regard to devaluation. It had no relationship to the preliminary statement I made on inflation.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GORTON:

– Yes, by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). In answering a question here relating to the price of land in Canberra the Minister indicated that it all began with my shooting from the hip in order to settle land prices in Canberra. The facts of the matter are that the proposition had been with the Department of the Interior, as it then was, for almost a year, from memory. The Department had reached a conclusion. I was told of the conclusion by Mr Nixon. I then put it through Cabinet and we then changed the rating on land. There is no shooting from the hip in that. The result is that instead of leaseholders having their land revalued every 20 years and being charged on that revaluation, they paid rates and taxes the same as everybody else does. That is precisely what the Government is continuing to do now.

page 280

COMMISSION ON ADVANCED EDUCATION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the preliminary report by the Commission on Advanced Education on non-government teachers colleges.

page 281

COMMITTEE ON INTEGRATION OF DATA SYSTEMS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Committee on Integration of Data Systems which was forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) dated 31 March 1974.

page 281

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I table the second and final report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission.

page 281

REPORTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present annual reports for 1972-73 of the following research and development establishments: Aeronautical Research Laboratories; Central Studies Establishment; Defence Standards Laboratories; Weapons Research Establishment.

page 281

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– Pursuant to section 168 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971-1973 I present the seventh annual report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices with respect to his operations during the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 281

ACTIVE MANPOWER POLICY FOR AUSTRALIA

Reports and Ministerial Statement

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I present to the House 3 reports, namely, the report of the Australian Interdepartmental Mission to Study Overseas Manpower and Industry Policies and Programs; Australian Labor Market Training, report of the Committee of Inquiry into labor market training; and Manpower Policy in Australia, a report to the Organisations for Economic Cooperation and Development. In tabling these reports I take the opportunity of giving this House-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister for Labor and Immigration must seek leave to make a statement. He cannot debate the presentation of papers.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I thought leave had been granted. As I was saying in tabling these reports I take the opportunity of giving this House a brief outline of the manpower policy this Government is following. There has been no major government statement on manpower policy for almost 30 years. In May 1945 the then Government produced a White Paper entitled ‘Full Employment for Australia’. That White Paper and the Re-establishment and Employment Act that followed from it established full employment as a fundamental aim of the Australian Government. All governments since have claimed to support that. It remains a firm and basic commitment of the present Government. At the same time, I think I should make it clear that the present Government is bound also by the platform of the Party it represents to maintain full employment.

The economic and social forces acting upon our country have changed considerably over the last 3 decades, creating problems which challenge the effectiveness of traditional economic policy measures and which have enormous implications for the people of Australia. The central dilemma facing governments throughout the whole industrialised world is that of controlling inflation without creating unemployment. The application of fiscal and monetary controls to curb inflation may result, and very often does result, in an unacceptable rise in the level of unemployment. The maintenance of Australia’s economic well-being also requires a capacity for its industries to adjust to changes in the structure of the economy. Structural change may come about as a result of more or less spontaneous changes in the pattern of consumer demand, the discovery and exploitation of new resources and variations in international trade. It may also be caused by deliberate government action designed to secure a more effective use of national resources.

This Government has shown that it is prepared to foster desirable structural change in this country’s industries. But I emphasise that it is not prepared to do so at the expense of members of the work force. That is why it has introduced an extensive system of income maintenance for those displaced by government-induced structural change, and that is one of the significant reasons why it is introducing a comprehensive labour market training system - known at NEAT - to which I shall be referring later in this statement. It is also within the context of coping with the effects of structural change that the Government is investigating in collaboration with the peak trade union councils what capacity in government factories can be put to use for viable commercial purposes. Moreover, the Government has recognised that industry itself must be assisted to cope with structural change. The Government has already announced the setting up of a Structural Assistance Board, the main task of which will be to assist firms and industries to adjust to changes in economic conditions and government policy.

Whether brought about by deliberate acts of government or as a consequence of natural processes of adjustment, the economic forces which mould our country’s development and are essential for its long term prosperity may, in the short run, dislocate the working lives of Australians. Previous governments have sought to tackle the manpower problems arising from change by a series of ad hoc measures applied band-aid fashion after the damage has been done. There has been no overall manpower strategy which seeks to integrate the nation’s economic requirements with the social needs and aspirations of individual Australians. It was with the express purpose of developing such a strategy that I asked the Secretary of my Department, Dr Ian Sharp, to lead a mission of experts to examine and evaluate manpower and industry policies and measures adopted in selected overseas countries. The report of that mission, which I have presented today, is the first concentrated and co-ordinated review of manpower policy in Australia since the White Paper of 1945. Drawing on the best of overseas experience, the report provides a basic framework for an active manpower policy for Australia.

An active manpower policy is designed to deal with change, whether occurring spontaneously or as a result of government action. Through the selective application of a series of manpower measures the adverse effects on employment of, for example, technological change, tariff adjustments and the decline of traditional industries can be minimised. Jobs can be created in low employment areas, re-training and re-location programs can assist occupational and geographical mobility, and improved employment placement techniques that can assist those seeking new and improved positions. Such measures represent positive action by government to ensure that unemployment consequences are minimised in periods of great economic difficulty. This is one aspect of an active manpower policy. A second and complementary one lies in its application in times of high economic activity. Where there are shortages of skilled labour, those on the lower rungs of skill can be trained for higher level occupations, improving the general quality of skills in the work force. Those who live in areas where employment opportunities are lacking can be encouraged to move to places where opportunities exist for them. Special measures can be taken to assist married women to re-enter the work force if they want to, and to make sure that people with disabilities are enabled to make a contribution to the working life of the community. Manpower measures can themselves be a potent force for change. Properly integrated industrial and manpower policies are essential if Australia is to have successful regional growth policies. Through comprehensive vocational guidance, training, and employment placement services, the disadvantaged groups in our community can be assisted to improve their occupational skills and, therefore, their standards of living. These are some aspects of an active manpower policy. Such a policy provides an overall plan for programs that can be applied to a variety of labour market situations and the employment problems which can harm any ordinary Australian. Is is not merely concerned with avoiding unemployment. It also provides a means of developing our manpower resources.

Immigration policy, particularly when it relates to migrants who want to enter the work force, must play an important part in the formulation of manpower policy. The likely employment prospects for migrants and their families are surely an important consideration in ensuring that the migrant is satisfactorily integrated into the Australian community. This is true for both assisted and unassisted migrants. We simply cannot view migrants as a source of unskilled labour for this country. I suspect that this has been the narrow and shortsighted view of some interests in the community in the past. For this reason, the amalgamation of the old departments of Labour and

Immigration will ensure that there is a much closer relationship between immigration and manpower policies than there has been in the past. The introduction of NEAT will provide enhanced opportunities for migrants. An active manpower policy for Australia cannot be introduced overnight. Concurrently with the overseas mission’s examination of overseas policy and practice we have undertaken a critical analysis of manpower needs in Australia. A report of one of these investigations was presented to this House last December. That was the report of the Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Statistics. As a result of that report my Department is developing its capacity to assemble the manpower data that we need to support new manpower initiatives. It is absolutely crucial to a properly integrated manpower policy that we are able to make short-term, medium-term and indeed long-term projections of possible labour needs. This is quite central and critical to a successful manpower policy.

Another report which 1 present today was prepared by my Department for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The report - ‘Manpower Policy in Australia’ - provides a review of the labour market situation and a statement of our policies in this area. It provided the basis for a recent examination of our manpower policies by a group of OECD experts who had visited Australia. Only last week the head of my Department, Dr Sharp, returned from the OECD where, through a process known as ‘confrontation’, Australia’s manpower policies were put under the microscope by the OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee. I anticipate that later this year the OECD will issue a report on its conclusions as to the nature and effectiveness of our manpower policies.

There remains one further report which I present today. That is the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Training, popularly known as, and it will be historically known as, the Cochrane report. I want to pay special tribute to Professor Cochrane and his colleagues who are in the House today. They have prepared quite a magnificent report. 1 am sorry that the third member of the Committee, Mr Pat Clancy who is the Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, is not able to be present to hear his report being tabled. He is involved in a court proceeding today in which he is representing his union, and this has made it impossible for him to honour us with his presence. Their report is of great significance to all Australians. It sets out a blue print for the training and retraining of the work force. My colleague, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has already presented the report of the Committee on Technical and Further Education in Australia which provides the basis for government thinking on the institutional base. The Cochrane report and the recently announced National Employment and Training System provide the basis upon which to use training as an instrument of a labour market policy.

I want to pay special tribute to another member of the Cochrane Committee, Mr Ted Donohoe, for putting his time into the preparation of the report. He is a man who has had an enormous wealth of experience as an employer of labour in the furnishing industry, and he was able to bring to the Committee the knowledge gained from many years’ experience of the industry which he so capably represented.

I believe that these 3 reports on Australia’s labour market development and policy needs provide the groundwork on which to construct the manpower programs which will constitute an active manpower policy for Australia. Indeed, the process has already begun. I have mentioned that steps have already been taken to provide comprehensive manpower information which will allow us to identify imbalances emerging in the labour market. The focal point of our activities will be the national manpower agency, the Commonwealth Employment Service. For too many years CES has been starved of funds and resources so that it has been unable to operate as a national manpower service; that is, if, in fact, previous Liberal Governments saw it as playing such a role. One of my main tasks has been to stimulate the progressive upgrading of CES so that it can carry out this function.

In addition to the National Employment and Training System, other measures have been developed to allow training to take its proper role as a central element of manpower policy. These include the development of training in industry under the auspices of the National Training Council; the promotion of apprenticeship through the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme; tangible encouragement of trade union training; and in accordance with Government policy, ways will be explored of implementing the ILO Convention on paid educational leave adopted at the 59th International Labour Conference this year. Other key manpower policy initiatives under active consideration at the moment are the selective use of funds to create employment opportunities in areas of high unemployment, which was referred to by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) at question time today; and a relocation assistance scheme to assist persons without reasonable local employment prospects to move to areas of greater employment opportunity.

In the 3 reports I have tabled today, there is a rich fund of proposals and ideas which we will develop as we press forward with our policy of providing satisfying employment opportunities for all Australians. It is the Government’s intention, by using an active manpower policy, not only to maintain full employment but to ensure security of employment. These policies cannot, of course, be introduced in isolation. They must be integrated with related economic and social policies in the areas of industry development, social welfare and education. It is with this in mind that the Government has made sure that the Industries Assistance Commission must take careful account of the manpower implications of its recommendations.

This has necessarily been a brief statement. I only wish I had a couple of hours to explain more fully some of the marvellous programs that we contemplate in the area of manpower training. I know that there is enormous enthusiasm in the community for the development of these policies. I am heartened and encouraged by the public reaction to NEAT. I was heartened to hear during the election campaign the enthusiastic support which the official spokesman for the Opposition on these matters gave to the project of manpower training.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– You would not have got it through Cabinet without that support.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member says that I would not have got it through Cabinet without his support. I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

Mr Wentworth:

– I hope you are heartened by the empty Government benches behind you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am pleased to tell honourable members that in the course of i he recent OECD confrontation, which I referred to earlier - this will interest the honourable gentleman who interjected - a senior official of the OECD said that, with the development of NEAT, Australia has become one of the leaders in manpower training amongst the member countries of that important international organisation. We must, as a national government, have at our disposal a very wide range of flexible manpower programs. They must be programs which can anticipate and influence events, rather than merely react to them. I commend these reports to honourable members and I express once again my warm thanks to all those who participated in their preparation.

page 284

DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS, THE PRINCE HENRY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before there is any further dicussion on the reports just tabled by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) I would like to make an announcement. I have to inform the House that, in reply to the address of condolence of this House on the occasion of the death of His Royal Highness, The Prince Henry, Her Majesty the Queen has sent the following message:

I am most grateful for the address unanimously agreed by the members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled conveying to mc their’ sorrow on the death of the Duke of Gloucester. I and my family much appreciate their sympathy.

page 284

ACTIVE MANPOWER POLICY FOR AUSTRALIA

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– I seek leave to make a statement on the matter referred to by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron).

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the House. The Minister at the table, I understand, intends to move: ‘That the House take note of the paper’. I would be grateful if he would do that after I have spoken, because 3 large and lengthy reports have been tabled and it is obviously quite impossible to debate those reports this afternoon. I think that both Ministers in the House - the Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) - would recognise that that is so. If the Minister will be good enough to move that the House take note of the paper, I and other honourable members on both sides will be able to participate in the debate when we have had time to study the reports.

Mr Morrison:

– It could be left until the adjournment debate.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I think that there is more likelihood of being able to come back to it if it is done in this way and if I make this brief statement with the leave of the House already granted to me. For a long time the Minister for Labor and Immigation (Mr Clyde Cameron) has been struggling to get his retraining proposals accepted by the Government, It has been a stormy passage. I think he originally told us that the proposals were ready for Cabinet last September or October. There was an interchange when he mentioned about Christmas time the possibility, which he thought would not be a wise one, of shooting the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Statements were made, before and during the election campaign, in which the Minister indicated that proposals were ready to be placed before Cabinet. But I think the factor that really spurred the Minister on to even greater efforts and enabled the proposal to have an impact on the Prime Minister - for some strange reason he had obviously been reluctant about these proposals from the outset - was the impending disaster of unemployment caused by the policies of the present government.

Since last Christmas the Minister for Labor himself, whose Department would be closest to the labour market in these areas, has been warning the Government that unemployment is pending. We all know the famous secondlast paragraph in his letter to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) when he said:

Dear Frank,

You will recall that at the beginning of the year I said that unemployment would rise before the end of 1974 but, on that occasion, Treasury officials saw fit to ridicule my forecast. I am convinced that I was right. I want the Government to change course before it finishes up in the same sorry mess as its predecessors-

I suppose he could be forgiven that odd partisan comment. The Minister clearly fears unemployment. The proposals for retraining and the proposals for changes in the structural assistance for industry are designed to make people think that the problems and difficulties facing the Australian economy can be overcome without pain or hardship to anyone. I say: Good luck to the Minister if he is success ful in that and good luck to him for having got his proposals, such as they are at this stage, through Cabinet.

The proposals are vague. What the Minister has said about the national employment and training system - known as NEAT - is vague. They are statements of general principles, not specifics. I had hoped that, in tabling the documents today, the Minister would have been making a specific statement - how will NEAT work? Who will be eligible? What will be the machinery? These are details about which many people are starting to ask.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If you would like to ask me to have a cup of tea with you afterwards I will give you the details.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I am interested in the details but I think that a lot of other people are interested in the details too. I do not want the information only for myself. I have followed closely the Minister’s statements on these subjects on the television program ‘Federal File’. All the statements have been broad general principles. I think that the Australian community and the Australian workers at Leyland and in a number of other industries - one-third of the workers in the meat industry are unemployed - are waiting eagerly to know what the details are. It would be of great advantage if the Minister would ask his Department to prepare a detailed paper on how NEAT will work; how people can apply; how, if too many people apply for the available resources at this stage, will the selection be made between them; how many times can somebody come back; can he stay on retraining continually instead of on unemployment benefits. I do not imagine that that is in the Minister’s mind. How can the possibilities of abuse, which could exist, be avoided?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It has all been taken care of.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister says that it has all been taken care of. That only adds to the sin of not telling the House and the trade union movement how it has been taken care of, because we have a right to know and a right to something more than general broad principles.

The Opposition supports the broad terms and the thrust of what the Minister is seeking to do. So that it is plainly on the record, let me say that long before the Minister was able to persuade the Prime Minister to accept the paper the Opposition set out policies which the Liberal Party and the Country Party both embrace fully and completely. I hope that the House will bear with me for a moment while I read from the Opposition’s policy document. Under the heading ‘Discrimination and Equal Opportunity’ we say:

There should be full equality of opportunity in employment.

There should be no discrimination of employment on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

I would like to know what the Minister intends to do to see that more trade unions remove unnecessary bans against the employment of women. There might be occasions when people of one sex or the other can better or more tactfully perform certain jobs. But unnecessary bans exist. The waterfront has recently removed some bans, but this does not apply to all of industry. The Opposition is opposed to discrimination in employment wherever it occurs and in all its forms. Where there are unnecessary trade union bans, these involve discrimination. I think that the Minister for Labor and Immigration, who is so close to the labour movement, should do most to ensure that those bans are removed. The policy states:

The principles of freedom and equality of opportunity are inalienable rights inherent in liberal beliefs. The Parties seek full equality of opportunity for all and complete freedom from discrimination.

Entrenched traditions and attitudes against equal employment opportunities for women in certain 0:CUpations are out of place in today’s society. We wish to establish true equality of opportunity which involves equal opportunity for training, advancement and the abolition of wage disparities between men and women doing similar work.

In this area, especially in relation to some categories of female clerks, the Minister has not always performed as fully as the trade union movement might have expected.

Mr Riordan:

– That is nonsense.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– The honourable member for Phillip is also involved in a particular dispute in which that allegation can be made and where documentary evidence in some of the cases before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can be adduced to support what I have just said.

Mr Riordan:

– It might be produced but it cannot support what you have just said.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I can bring the documents into this House and, with the permission of the House, incorporate them in Hansard.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You are talking only about the printing trade.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am referring to a dispute involving Trans-Australia Airlines and the letter the Minister wrote at that time. The policy goes on to say:

Discrimination in occupation on the basis of sex is inconsistent with human dignity and incompatible with present day aspirations and ideals.

One of the areas for question in the retraining proposals is how the Minister will see that groups that have been discriminated against are given equal opportunity. Will there be some special provision to see that a position of inferiority is not perpetuated in the new arrangements? I think that that is important. It is one of the details which we would welcome. The document continues:

Consultation with employees and employers will be necessary to achieve flexibility in working hours and conditions that are geared almost exclusively to a male life style. Equality here will involve the cooperation of employer and employee organisations and the community.

The Liberal Party and the Country Party recognise that the foundation of all discrimination is discrimination of attitude and of mind. We will use example, encouragement, administration and, where appropriate, specific legislation to overcome such discrimination.

Then the policy mentions a number of specific areas as follows:

Encouraging, or where possible, establishing, equal opportunity for recruitment, training and advancement for all groups in the community which means the removal of artificial restrictions on entry into associations, professions or trade unions on grounds other than competence.

Removing any remaining legal discrimination in employment and ensuring that selection and promotion is on the basis of merit.

Ensuring that vocational guidance is given without bias between men and women.

Encouraging schools to remove bias in educational curricula.

Establishing special courses to enable those who have left the workforce or who want to upgrade or modernise their skills to do so.

How will the new retraining scheme - NEAT - achieve that? I am not saying that it will not achieve that but I would like to know how and I think that other people also would like to know how. The policy continues:

Discriminating positively in training programs in favour of those who have been disadvantaged.

That refers to migrant groups in the community, Aboriginal groups in the community and women. We would do this also by encouraging and establishing special facilities and procedures for those who cannot work full time or in normal office or factory hours, including child care facilities, supplementary after school facilities, staggered working hours, flexible time, part time and job sharing, the appropriate application of superannuation schemes and special retraining courses. Also we would work for the abolition of unnecessary male and female categories of work in legislation and industrial awards.

We would strengthen the resources of the Department of Labor - a policy which the Minister has now adopted - to enable adequate research and advisory facilities to be established to identify obstacles to equal opportunity, especially for women and for migrants, and advise methods to overcome them. We would review and strengthen the capacity of the Department of Labor - 1 am glad to see that the Minister is doing this - to provide assistance to those who experience special disadvantages and handicaps in employment and to seek out and promote employment opportunities for Aborigines. Within the Public Service Board, which the Minister has not mentioned, we would establish a special bureau to advise the Board and public authorities of employment practices which deny equal opportunity.

There are many areas in which the implications of a training program affect the opportunities or equal opportunities for employment, and in the statement which the Minister has said he will make to the House there should be elements to show how NEAT will help to provide them. The Minister also could be much more specific about the working and operation of the retraining program itself. Again some of the objectives in our policy, I believe, accord very much with what the Minister has said. I do not know whether it is correct or not, but I have been advised that the publication of our document was not unhelpful to the Minister in ultimately getting his programs accepted by Cabinet.

Mr Riordan:

– Oh!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– The honourable member for Phillip might be surprised.

Mr Riordan:

– Why don’t you tell us what you did in government?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– My purpose is to say what we will do in the future. The honourable member always looks back to the past. He should now look to the future. The development of skills should be encouraged. Training schemes are needed at all levels to provide greater opportunities for employees and employers to improve their skills and to enable employees to take maximum advantage of available employment opportunities. Conditions conducive to the mobility and advancement of employees are essential in a progressive and dynamic community. Where there may be disruption to employees through technological change there should be prior consultation with employees and their organisations with the aim of avoiding unnecessary hardship or redundancy. Where there is redundancy as a result of technological change or for other reasons, financial assistance, training, retraining and other measures must be available to minimise hardship and to preserve persona] Jiving standards. Governments have a principal responsibility in this matter.

Although we say that governments have a principal responsibility in this matter, and that is something which the Minister plainly accepts, a retraining scheme of the kind and scale which the Minister has in mind needs to be carefully managed to make sure that it does not inhibit the retraining that now takes place within industry and is paid for by industry so that industry can retain employees it wants to continue to employ. Industry must be encouraged to maintain and expand its own training and retraining programs. The policy in this area in particular needs to provide for examination of the future opportunities for trained staff in government, industry and commerce. People who are encouraged and offered training reasonably expect to make effective use of their acquired skills. Therefore, the Liberal and Country Parties would set up manpower planning procedures for obtaining and monitoring employers’ and employees’ views of forward requirements. The aim of these manpower planning procedures would be to provide employers and employees, including the Government, with the best possible indication of future employment needs and opportunities.

If NEAT is to be successful something of this kind must be done. Again we do not have the details of how this information is to be collected and what sort of surveys will be conducted. There is a wealth of important detail which we need to have before we can have confidence that the scheme will be well managed. Again this is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact. The Minister says that he has the detail. I hope that the comprehensive statement will give us the detail which can be debated when the House returns to the debate on these 3 documents.

Retraining needs to encourage the development of skills. A Liberal and Country Party Government would encourage training schemes at all levels so that people could take maximum advantage of present and future employment opportunities and could develop their talents to the full in a dynamic and changing society. Special attention would be given to the problems of those people who missed out in the normal process of education and training and who seek education and training opportunities at a later age. Special provision for training would also be made for identifiable disadvantaged groups in the community. I would have thought that NEAT ought to give special attention to those who have missed cut on training early in life - people who might have left school and not undertaken an apprenticeship or any other trade or college training and who later wish to upgrade their skills and capacities. At the moment we just do not know whether it will.

A Liberal and Country Party Government would encourage the development of nationally and internationally recognised certificates of competence in the trades and in the professions. This is something that I commend to the Minister. I have not heard him mention it. That is no criticism of the Minister. If a person has a qualification, that qualification ought to be accepted at least Australia-wide and preferably beyond Australia. In some areas that does happen, but in all too many areas diplomas and certificates of one kind or another apply within a State and not beyond that State. It is a situation which the Government, through the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), ought to do something to try to overcome.

One of the things that the Minister does not tell us is how the apprentice training scheme will be affected by NEAT. Are people going to want to go through the thr.ee or four years of a somewhat laborious apprentice training if they can get training at a later stage - in 6 months or 12 months, paid for by the Government and under better conditions than would exist under apprentice training - and probably end up being able to earn the same wage? So the implication of a retraining scheme such as NEAT for the general apprenticeship scheme is something that needs looking at closely, and we need to know what the Minister has in mind. Here again an element of our policy is relevant.

Recognising the traditional and future social importance of dedicated and highly skilled tradesmen in Australia, a Liberal and Country Party Government would undertake a full examination of apprentice and trade training schemes in co-operation with employee and employer organisations and the States to see that they meet the needs of today’s society. In that examination we would have as an objective the encouragement of more young men and women to enter appropriate trades. We would promote recognition of adult apprenticeship and wider opportunities for retraining. The Minister does not tell us what acceptance he has from the trade union movement of adult training and adult apprenticeship, although acceptance by the trade union movement obviously will be important. A Liberal and Country Party Government would recognise that employers should not use the opportunities created by adult training to downgrade or reclassify particular jobs. I understand that that may have happened in the past. In any development of adult apprenticeship, the existing entry of young men and women into trades would be safeguarded.

We believe that retraining needs to be strengthened. Individuals may seek retraining not only to further their changing ideals as they mature but also to seek better opportunities in a changing world. The Liberal Party and the Country Party support retraining and believe it must be offered particularly to those persons affected by technological change or change in regional or sectional employment conditions. Where there is disruption to employees through technological change or because of regional or sectional employment problems, a Liberal and Country Party Government would provide opportunities for training or retraining and assistance with relocation and housing.

A Liberal and Country Party Government would conduct constructive research into the problems associated with and caused by technological change. We would expand the capacity of the Department of Labor to provide advice and information on technological change so that all concerned might have available to them the best and most up to date advice on maximising opportunities and dealing with the problems and difficulties that can occur. We would encourage wider recognition of the procedures recommended by the National Labour Advisory Council. The retraining scheme ought to have a particular impact in overcoming some of the problems of migrants for whom the Minister is now directly responsible. A Liberal and Country Party Government would review the special situation of migrants to ensure that they were neither disadvantaged nor discriminated against because of lack of training, as I believe some are at present. We would provide special facilities for the disadvantaged and handicapped.

We place special emphasis on facilities for those who are disadvantaged - for example Aborigines - for those who are experiencing some particular handicap or disadvantage and for those with a record of continuous unemployment. Of course the Minister would well know that the number receiving unemployment benefits full time has virtually doubled or more than doubled since he has been in office. We would discriminate positively in favour of such groups in training programs. We would also encourage training programs in industry. None of these statements of principle and specific objectives in our policy would appear to run in conflict with anything that the Minister has so far said. But I believe that what we have said about training and retraining is more specific than the somewhat broad generalisations that the Minister has made about NEAT. I commend him for his persistence in getting this measure through Cabinet, even if only under cover of the flap created within the Government by the publication of his own letter. One of the great mysteries is which Minister gave that copy to the Press, but that obviously created additional support which clearly was of assistance to the Minister in getting his programs through.

The Minister refers to the advantages that will come through the Department of Immigration being combined with the Department of Labor. We do not agree with that. There are many problems of migrants which the Department of Labor and Immigration is illequipped to deal with. We would reverse that situation. There are many problems for migrants settling in Australia, and matters which to them appear to be difficult and which cause concern to them are matters that we might take for granted. I do not believe that the Department of Labor and Immigration would have the sensitivity and the understanding to be aware of these problems. The Minister is running the risk of having the allegation made - I would hope it is not true - that the Government is concerned about the migrant community only insofar as it can provide people for jobs and to man Australian factories. I would have thought and hoped that there was a much wider Australian concern for the migrant community than that. That is one of the reasons why we want the Department of Immigration to remain and maintain its separate identity. There are real problems which the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar) will deal with for the Opposition parties, and they are not best dealt with by the Department of Labor and Immigration.

The Minister has said that his Department is collecting manpower data which will help him in implementing the NEAT proposal. But I would have thought and hoped that, knowing that this proposal would ultimately get through, being so confident that the Government policies were going to cause unemployment and that when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) would support the proposal, his Department would have been collecting data for many months in the past. This is one of the areas where we could have been given more information. But what kind of information; what kind of forecasts; what are people to be trained in; what industries does the Minister believe Government policies will send to the wall; what industries therefore will need to be restructured; what trades will become redundant; where will be the gaps or the continued shortages of labour within the Australian community if the Government’s economic policies cause widespread and general unemployment in every trade?

A retraining program can really only help with unemployment problems if there is sectional, structural or regional unemployment or if there are continuing areas of underemployment, of labour shortage. Then people can be trained for something else. But if Government policies cause widespread unemployment right across the whole structure of industry there are not the areas of shortage of labour for the jobs people might want to train for. So there is a great deal of research and information that I think we would all want and I am quite certain the trade union movement wants.

There is the question of equity between different people in the community. I mentioned the priorities and guidelines which would have to be established because you will not be able to take everyone in who wants to be retrained at a particular period. How does one make a judgment between a man who has lost a job, a man who wants to upgrade his skills, a women who has a low grade job because there has never been an opportunity for training, somebody not yet in the work force such as a single mother who wants to join the work force, if there is only one place available for people from all these different categories? How does one see that equity is maintained between a mother who goes out to get the $80 a week which she can when she is training, with her children looked after in child care facilities to be provided by the Government, and a mother who gets nothing from the Government because she prefers to stay at home and look after her children and believes that is what she ought to do. There is a question of equity which the Minister and the ‘Government ought to concern themselves about.

The expansion of NEAT ought not to be used to hide unemployment as it develops. People ought not to be used to enable different criteria to be established for the judgment of unemployment figures and perhaps to hide the unemployment which could be revealed in the coming months. We need to know its impact on many different aspects of training and activity in Australia, such as on the general apprenticeship programs. We need to know what training facilities will be available in the country. Farmers being sold up as a result of Government policies, will their wives and other people who live in country areas have to go to Melbourne or Sydney to be retrained or will facilities be made available for this purpose in country areas? What will be the impact of the training programs conducted by the Government on training programs now conducted by industry at industry’s expense? What will happen to somebody who has been self-employed who wants to get some other trade or skill? Will he have an equal opportunity?

There are many of these areas where the Minister would do this House, the Australian work force and the trade union movement a great service if he made more information available. As soon as he can do that and put down a specific, as opposed to a general, statement I would be grateful if the 3 reports which have been tabled, the Minister’s speech and the longer statement which I have asked for could all be debated together. Now I am delighted to acquiesce in resolving the impatience of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) in a matter which I would have thought was important.

Mr Daly:

– Make the most of it because you will never get another chance.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is a pity the Leader of the House shows his impatience 60 plainly on matters that are of interest and concern right across the Australian community and does everything he can to deny debate in this Parliament. I only hope that he will give people who want retraining a better go and more equality of opportunity than he provides in this Parliament.

page 290

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) 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:

The purpose of this Bill is to establish a fully elected Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory consisting of 19 members to replace the present Legislative Council comprised of 1 1 elected members and 6 official members. The measure represents a major step forward in the constitutional development of the Northern Territory in conformity with Labor policy announced prior to the 1972 elections. The overwhelming weight of evidence so far presented to the joint committee of the Parliament on the Northern Territory favours a legislature of 19 to 25 members. The elected members of the Legislative Council unanimously favour a Legislative Assembly of 19 members. The Government supports their view that this would provide a workable legislature.

The Bill also provides for certain consequential amendments. The most important of these are: Clause 1 2 (a) provides for the Administrator’s Council (an essentially advisory body to the Administrator) to consist of 5 members of the proposed legislative assembly. At present the Administrator’s Council consists of 2 official members and 3 elected members; and clause 16 provides, inter alia, for the continuation of ordinances in force at the time the Legislative Assembly is constituted.

Elections must be held in the Northern Territory before 24 October next. Recent events affecting the operation of this Parliament have made it necessary for the Government to proceed with this Bill as a matter of priority in these sittings so that elections might be held on that date and the Government’s undertaking to give the people of the Northern Territory a fully elected legislature by the end of this year, might be kept. When the new Assembly takes office discussions will be held with the members of that body concerning future government of the Northern Territory. It is hoped that those discussions will be able to take place with the advantage of having by then a report from the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Northern Territory. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 291

WOOL INDUSTRY 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This measure was originally presented to Parliament in March of this year and, although approved by this House, it failed to complete passage through the Senate before the Parliament was dissolved. It is therefore necessary to re-introduce it. The background and provisions of the Bill were explained to the House in detail last March. Briefly, the Bill seeks to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972-73 to provide for the financing of the projected wool research and promotion programs and of the marketing administrative costs of the Australian Wool Corporation during the 3 years commencing in July 1974. In addition, the Bill provides for the continuation of the existing arrangements for apportionment of funds available for research and promotion respectively.

As at present, wool research and promotion will be financed jointly by wool growers and the Government while marketing administration will be funded entirely by the industry. Opportunity is being taken to seek removal from the principal Act of provisions for an interim chairman which have become redundant. Amendments have been included in recognition of relevant provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 which relate to the remuneration of statutory office holders. The funding arrangements for wool research and promotion terminated on 30 June last. It is essential therefore that this legislation be enacted as early as possible. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 291

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILISATION 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:

This Bill and the 2 complementary Bills, the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1974 and the Wheat Products Export Adjustment Bill 1974, provide for the implementation of a wheat industry stabilisation plan in respect of the 5 seasons beginning 1 October 1974 and for the continuing operation of the Australian Wheat Board as the sole marketing authority for wheat in Australia and for wheat and wheat products exported from Australia. As is the case with the existing plan, the Board’s marketing powers will extend for 2 seasons beyond the duration of the stabilisation plan. This will enable continuity of the Board’s operations to be maintained. It is necessary for complementary legislation to be enacted by each of the States as some aspects of the arrangements, in particular, the vesting of the ownership of wheat in the hands of the Board, the implementation of any wheat delivery quotas and the marketing of wheat within the State of production, rely on State law for their operation.

Honourable members will recall that the previous wheat stabilisation plan, originally due to expire in 1972-73, was extended for one year, to cover the marketing of wheat of the 1973-74 season, pending review of the arrangements by the Government. Resulting from this review, the Government concluded that there should be a major revision of the existing stabilisation arrangements. In particular, we reached the position that the provision of a guaranteed price for a specific quantity of exports, with the price being adjusted according to certain cost movements from year to year, was not conducive to maximum efficiency in the wheat industry.

The basic aims of the proposed plan, which has been accepted by the wheat industry organisation - the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation - and the State governments, are reflected in this Bill and the complementary Bills. They are to give the industry some security against price fluctuation without distorting the underlying trend in market prices and without providing an unduly large and very often, unpredictable, net contribution by the Government to the industry over the period of the plan.

The agreed plan sets out to achieve these aims by, firstly, abandoning the concept of guaranteed price’ and replacing it with a stabilisation price’ related to movements in the international wheat market; secondly, cushioning sharp changes in export prices by moving the stabilisation price gradually into line with market prices; thirdly, providing definite limits to the extent to which the Government can be called upon to underwrite the plan; and, fourthly, providing a mechanism which could reasonably be expected to continue to operate indefinitely and not to require frequent renegotiation although periodic review and new legislation would be necessary.

It was the Government’s intention to introduce this legislation with the aim of having it passed by the Parliament by 30 June 1974 and thus avoid a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission. It was not possible to keep to this timetable because of delays in obtaining the agreement of all the States to the plan and the intervention of the double dissolution of Parliament. However, the Government considers that it is neither practical nor desirable at this point of time to refer the plan to the Commission. The recital to the Bill sets out the special circumstances and provides for a special exemption from reference of the plan to the Commission.

The main features of the stabilisation proposals in this Bill and the complementary Wheat Export Charge Bill 1974 are as follows:

Stabilisation Price

This is to be set for the 1974-75 season at S73.49 per tonne f.o.b. or S2 per bushel, and adjusted for each of the next 4 succeeding seasons by the application of the formula set out in sub-clause 29 (5) of the Bill. Subject to the financial limits which I will indicate, the stabilisation price will apply to all wheat exports of a season. Under all previous plans there was a limit placed on the quantity of exports in any season which would qualify for a guaranteed floor price.

Average Export Price

This is the average price, f.o.b. equivalent, contracted to be paid for all exported wheat.

page 292

OPERATION OF THE STABILISATION FUND

The Stabilisation Fund will commence with a credit balance equal to the amount to be contributed as charge on wheat exports of the 1973-74 season, estimated at $48m.

When the average price for all exports of a season is above the stabilisation price set for that season and above $55.12 per tonne f.o.b. or $1.50 per bushel, growers will contribute to the Fund up to $30m or $5.51 per tonne or 15 cents per bushel, whichever is the lower, subject to the growers’ contribution not exceeding an amount which would bring the final price - that is, the average export price less the contribution to the Fund - down to $55.12 per tonne. If the aggregate of the growers’ contributions plus the interest earning should at any time take the Fund to a credit in excess of $80m, the excess will be refunded to the Wheat Board for distribution to the earliest contributing pool.

When the average price for all exports of a season is below the stabilisation price set for that season, growers will receive from the Fund payments necessary to lift the average price for all exports of the season to the stabilisation price, subject to a maximum payment per season of $30m or $5.51 per tonne, or 1 5 cents per bushel, whichever is the lower; and, the payment not exceeding an amount which will bring the final price - that is, the average export price plus the payment from the Fund - to $73.49 per tonne. A qualification is that should the credit of the Fund reach $80m, this restriction on payments from the Fund will not apply for the ensuing period of the plan.

If, in any season, the Fund contains an insufficient level of industry contributions to meet payments required to be made from the

Fund in that season, the Government will contribute to the Fund the moneys necessary to meet the deficiency, subject to:

any Government contribution to the Fund being repaid to the Government from industry contributions in subsequent seasons of the plan period before those industry contributions are accumulated in the Fund; and

the net Government contribution to the Fund over the5 seasons not exceeding $80m.

The Government has agreed that any outstanding Government contributions not recouped by the end of the fifth season will be written off. Provision for this has not been included in the Bill as it is considered that this is not a matter to be covered by legislation. But I state the decision of this Government in this respect for the record. Its effect is that the Government is putting at risk an amount of up to $80m over the 5 years of the plan.

Home Consumption Price

The home consumption price arrangements will continue on the existing basis except that the Bill in authorising the Minister to determine, in consultation with State Ministers, the price at which the basic wheat shall be sold by the Board on the domestic market, will do so on the basis that it will be a single price for wheat for all purposes. In other words, there is no provision authorising special pricing arrangements for wheat for nonhuman consumption,as is the case under existing legislation. The home consumption price in each year commencing on 1 December will be adjusted from the base level of $70.41 per tonne or 191.6c per bushel, being the 1973-74 price, less the Tasmanian freight loading, according to movements in cash costs, and in rail freight and handling charges. In addition, continuing provision will be made for the Board to recoup in the home consumption price the cost of supplying wheat from the mainland to Tasmania, but on the basis that the Board will be empowered to take such steps as are practicable to recoup from Tasmanian interests the freight costs of the wheat equivalent of any products made from wheat of mainland origin and exported from Tasmania to the mainland. These arrangements are dealt with by clauses 32 and 33 of the Bill.

Other important features of the Bill are:

Terminology of the Basic Wheat

The old term ‘fair average quality’ is being replaced by the term ‘Australian standard white’ and this basic wheat is now defined in the legislation - see clause 4 of the Bill. This is seen by the Wheat Board as representing an improved image for Australian wheat in the market place.

Membership of the Board

The Board will have the same membership as provided for in the existing legislation, namely, a Chairman, 10 grower representatives, a finance member and one representative each of flour mill owners and employees - clause 8.

Directions by the Minister

The Minister will continue to have the power to issue directions to the Board in the performance of its functions. However, subclause 18 (2) has been included in the Bill to give effect to an undertaking given to the wheat industry by the Government that should the Minister direct the Board to sell any wheat on terms more generous than the Board has been prepared to grant on strictly commercial terms for that wheat, the Government will bear the full risk of non-payment in respect of the additional period involved in the direction.

Unauthorised Dealings with Wheat

Sub-clauses 21 (6) and 23 (1) (b) have been included in the Bill to strengthen the position of the Board in curbing dealings with wheat outside the Board. In particular, these provisions have been inserted with a view to meeting problems arising from the taking of leases of land on which there is a growing crop of wheat. They will close a loophole in existing legislation which has enabled circumvention of the long standing requirement that growers should deliver all their wheat production to the Board except quantities retained on farms for seeding and for the feeding of animals - see clause 21.

Quota Arrangements

The Bill contains provisions - clauses 6 and 25 - for the retention of the wheat delivery quota mechanism on the basis that it will be optional whether State governments make allocations of any State quotas, which may be applied in a season, to individual growers. However, the Bill continues the current requirement that in a quota season advances will only be payable by the Board on wheat delivered within a State up to the level of the quota determined for that State.

Borrowings by the Board

The Board will retain the authority - clause 36 - to borrow from the Reserve Bank, through its Rural Credits Department, the funds required for first advance payments to growers and for its marketing operations. In addition it is being given a supplementary borrowing power which could be used to make progress payments to growers at an accelerated rate, to expedite repayment of seasonal borrowings from the Reserve Bank or to finance stock holdings for lengthy periods. It is envisaged that the Board will only be authorised to borrow commercially against fully secured outstanding debts. All borrowings will be with the approval of the Minister and a Government guarantee of repayment may be given.

Annual Report

At clause 45 there is provision for the submission .by the .Board to the Minister for tabling in Parliament of an annual report of its operations, accompanied by financial statements in a form approved by the Treasurer and certified by the Auditor-General. There is no similar provision in the existing Act, but other statutory marketing boards are required to submit reports to Parliament. The year covered by the report, to 30 November, is in line with the seasonal operations of the Board.

Conclusions

As I have indicated, the plan I have outlined has been accepted by the industry and all State governments. I am confident that when the legislation is put into effect by the Australian and State Parliaments, the wheat industry, which is such a large and important industry producing a staple foodstuff in worldwide demand, will have a sound basis on which to plan for the future. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 294

WHEAT PRODUCTS EXPORT ADJUSTMENT 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:

As is the case with the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1974, this Bill is complementary to the

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill 1974. One of the powers granted to the Australian Wheat Board under the Stabilisation Bill is the power to pay to exporters of wheat products an amount equal to the difference between the home consumption price at which the exporter has purchased the wheat content of the manufactured products, and the ruling export price of wheat. Where the export price is less than the domestic price this ensures that exporters of wheat products are not put at a competitive disadvantage by having to pay higher than world prices for their wheat requirements.

This Bill authorises the Board to require exporters of wheat products to pay to the Board the difference between the export price and the home consumption price when the reverse situation applies and the export price is higher than the home consumption price. These special arrangements are necessary because at the time the wheat is sold to the manufacturer, it is not possible to determine what portion, if any, of the wheat will eventually be exported. The arrangements ensure that the manufacturer does not make a profit or loss by reason of purchasing the wheat at the home consumption price. He is in fact put in the position of having purchased the wheat at the export price. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 294

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, in association with the provisions of clause 30 of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill 1974, gives effect to a long-standing principle of the wheat industry stabilisation arrangements. This is that growers will contribute to a Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund part of their proceeds from export sales of wheat when those proceeds are higher than the guaranteed floor price (in this plan called the ‘stabilisation price’). In turn, growers will withdraw moneys from the Stabilisation Fund when export realisations are less than the stabilisation price, with the Australian Government providing moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet the payments required should the Stabilisation Fund not be in a position to meet the demands on it.

The Bill provides that, subject to the average export price, at f.o.b. level, of wheat and wheat products of a season covered by the Plan exceeding the stabilisation price set for the season and also exceeding $55.12 per tonne ($1.50 per bushel), growers will make contributions to the Stabilisation Fund. These will be by way of levy or charge on exports with the maximum payment in any season being $30m or $5.51 (15 cents per bushel) whichever is the lower, but again subject to a proviso that after payment of the levy, the average export realisation will not he less than $55.12 per tonne. The rale of charge, if any, for a season will be determined and paid following the declaration by the Minister of the average export price of wheat and wheat products of that season, under the provisions of clause 29 of the Stabilisation Bill.

Since, under the terms of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill and the complementary legislation which will be enacted by the States, the ownership of all wheat removed from farms will continue to be vested in the Australian Wheat Board for sale by it, the Board is being made responsible for the payment of the charge. 1 commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 295

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

  1. That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into, report on and make recommendations for -

    1. a balanced system of committees for the Parliament;
    2. the integration of the committee system into the procedures of the Parliament; and
    3. arrangements for committee meetings which will best suit the convenience of Senators and Members.
  2. That the committee consist of four Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, two Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one Member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, three Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  3. That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  4. That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.
  5. That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  6. That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as1 Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
  7. That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
  8. That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament.
  9. That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  10. That seven members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.
  11. That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.
  12. That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.
  13. That the committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.
  14. That the committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members of the committee have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy on the committee.
  15. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
  16. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

This motion is in broadly the same terms as the one which was passed by this House in August 1973. In view of that fact, I have no intention of speaking at great length on the motion. The substance of the motion is well known to honourable members and it received the endorsement of honourable members from both sides of the House when it was presented previously. In the last Parliament 40 committees were operating - 15 committees of this House and 25 committees of the Senate. Amongst those committees there was a great deal of cross-purpose investigation resulting in excess expenditure of time and money and in public servants giving the same evidence to different bodies of the same Parliament. In every way it was a complicated process which I believe a committee of the kind proposed could investigate. It could recommend means to simplify not only the operations of committees, but also to make them, in many cases, representative of the Parliament as a whole. In that way we could save not only the expense to the Parliament and the nation but also the time and energy of public servants giving the same evidence to different committees. I think, in a variety of ways, we could add to the deliberations of this Parliament by introducing a system that could be interwoven with the workings of both Houses and which would in every way suit members, the Parliament, the people and the public servants. 1 do not intend to rehash the debate that took place on the previous motion except to emphasise the essential need for the development of a balanced system of committees and the incorporation of the committee system into the procedures of the Parliament. This would permit the speeding up of the time taken in the deliberation of measures on the floor of the House and would result in a reduction in the wastage of money and manpower. I recall my speech of 22 August 1973 in which I stated that the conflict of interest between the meetings of these committees was, in itself, most inconvenient. It was proposed, as I said at that time, that this committee would make recommendations for a balanced system of committees for the Parliament, the integration of the committee system into the procedures of the Parliament and arrangements for committee meetings which would best suit the convenience of senators. At that time I also said:

The committee system is a very important part of the legislative machinery of many parliaments throughout the world.

For instance, in the Congress of the United States of America there are very important committees that do a tremendous amount of work. In addition, while I understand that committees of the House of Commons do not enjoy the same importance or at least have the same ramifications as those of the American Congress, they are important sections of the functioning of the British Parliament.

This motion will overcome what members of both Houses are finding it exceedingly dif ficult to do, that is to regularly attend to Parliament, to the committees and in every way to deliberate on matters that come before them. We have problems in this House with quorums being called whilst committees are meeting. Sittings of the House and Party meetings prevent committee members attending committee meetings. There are not enough members to go around, as it were, because of the need to service so many committees. All in all there is a multiplicity of problems associated with the present procedure which we on this side of the Parliament believe should be streamlined. That is why this motion has again been submitted to the Parliament.

I might say that the motion has been altered slightly from the previous motion in view of changes in another place due to the last elections. The proposed committee will comprise 7 members of this House and 5 members from another place. Four of the members of this House will be nominated by the Prime Minister. Two members will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and one member will be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party. In the Senate 3 senators will be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It will be a well balanced committee and in every way it will undoubtedly be able to give effect to what are comprehensive terms of reference.

I hope that honourable members on both sides of the House will support the motion. On checking the last debate it will be seen that there was general agreement from both sides of this House that the purpose of this proposed committee was a good one and that the committee could, in every way, be of great assistance to members of this Parliament. Therefore I suggest to honourable members that this motion should be supported. As I have said, I hope that it will be. I look a little further ahead. I think that probably in relation to our Standing Orders and the procedures of this Parliament as time goes on we could give a little consideration to a somewhat similar committee. As I mentioned here, there is a great need not only to improve the committee system but also in many respects to update the procedures of this Parliament. This proposed committee could be the forerunner of some very fruitful and beneficial changes in the working of the Parliament in a general way. Very briefly, T commend this motion to the House. I will not go over again the arguments I advanced on the last occasion. If anything, in the time that has passed since the original motion was introduced and passed by this Parliament more than ever, with the summoning of this new Parliament, the need has been indicated to combine or co-ordinate the committee systems. I therefore hope that the Opposition will support this motion.

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

– Again the Opposition supports the motion in its general concept, but I shall make a few observations. The use of the term: ‘A balanced system of committees for the Parliament’ is very broad and, I believe, needs to be scrutinised to the point where the committee which is to be appointed will have some limitations imposed upon the extent of its recommendations. I say that for the reason that parliamentary practice shows us very clearly that long ago the situation was established whereby a Committee of the Whole could transact certain procedures. This flows from the creation of the system of regulations and, of course, the procedures which follow or which may follow. Very detailed reference to committees is made in Odgers’ ‘Australian Senate Practice’. I urge every honourable member to look at the reference in that publication because of its significance to what is now being proposed by the Government. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has shown very great enthusiasm for this proposition. In August last a number of us recognised that there was a need for some clarification of the scope and number of committees and the opportunities given to them. That was on the practical side. But this afternoon I say that this is hard, cold politics. The Leader of the House has made that pretty clear because in his closing remarks he said that he believed that there should be very extensive changes. He referred to changes even involving the procedures of this House.

I recall that between 1970 and 1972 the Senate moved very extensively into the committee field. I suppose it could be said that it was the Murphy era. The Senate went committee mad, if I can use that term. I think that at the moment there might be some reluctance on the part of the Government to see a continuation of that kind of committee work in the Senate. There may be some slight variation in what was said in August and what is now being put to the House in regard to the intentions of the Government in this matter. In particular I refer to the important question of the delegation of legislation. This idea flows from the creation in the British Parliament of a situation in which committees have very extensive statutory powers. The House could affirm a resolution, could annul it within 40 days or, in another situation, could allow it to go merely by laying it on the table of the House. AH of this requires the creation of a proper system of orders which accord with the best principles of parliamentary procedure.

I hope that this committee will not be rushed into some propositions of the kind we saw in the Senate when it went committee happy, or of the kind we saw in relation to the procedures of this House when the present Leader of the House, with great enthusiasm 18 months ago, proposed many changes to the pattern of sittings, hours and the service of members of this House. Some of those proposals worked and some of them did not. I think the Leader of the House has settled down to a better situation currently, but I remind him that some of his very ambitious ideas did not succeed. I hope that there will not be an attempt to rush proposals into this House and into the other place which flow from this committee, which will drastically change the procedures and which, in so doing, will bring in their wake the kind of difficulties we observed in the operation of this House last year. Certainly there is need for some improvement but that must be balanced against cost, the time required of honourable members and the results achieved. The committee must have at its disposal full information, particularly in relation to staffing, cost and the time occupied by committees in the work that they performed in the last 18 months because there has been a proliferation of committees of a nature which has created some useful results, but in some other respects perhaps a degree of repetition. What is the ultimate intention of this proposal? Is it intended that there be some move away from the time spent in this chamber and the creation of a situation in which committees will take up some of that time? If longer time is to be allowed for attention to legislation or to its preparation this, of course, is commendable provided it can be done within the confines of a reasonable situation for members of Parliament.

Let us remember that the number in this House is a fixed number. It cannot be enlarged because of the decision made by the people unless we have a tremendous enlargement of the other place. We know that that is the objection to the enlargement of the number of honourable members in this chamber. So we have to face the circumstance in which the same number of honourable members have to cope with the increasing volume of work. In the individual electorate this is a pretty serious matter because, as members, we must regard our electorates and this House as the two principal ingredients of our time and responsibility. I say to the Leader of the House, who so enthusiastically said that there had been difficulties and that wc need to do things to overcome them, that we should also give some thought to the important need to provide better facilities to enable honourable members to do their job if they are to serve on committees and if more time is required of them beyond those two fundamentals - this chamber and their electorates. If this is something which can be considered by this committee, then we will get somewhere. So I urge the Leader of the House to think on this matter so that perhaps he might inform this committee, in the course of its inquiry, of the possible scope of assistance to individual members both inside and outside Parliament House. This all comes back to the question of what each individual can do to contribute to the work of Parliament and how he can best do it. I think that these 2 matters are inseparable if we are to get a proper result from the proposed committee.

I say as well that there has to be some general committee framework. The proliferation which has occurred in the committee system has brought into the concept of the conduct of the business of the House the useage of committees when political circumstances have occasioned the Government - I am not talking only of this Government because this applied to the previous Government - to appoint a committee on that particular matter or on some other matter. So, there must be some general committee framework.

As well as the traditional committees that have operated for many years, such as the House Committee and those that might be regarded as being the domestic committees of the respective chambers, joint committees - the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the Joint Committee on Public Works and so on - have been operating for many years. I think that the experience of even the Joint Committee on Public Works - a proposal is cur rently before this chamber for some changes to be made in relation to its functions - points very clearly to the aspect I have mentioned, namely, the need to ensure that those who serve on committees are able to do so effectively and efficiently whilst at the same time attending to their parliamentary duties.

If such a framework is to be put into perspective there must, of necessity, be some limitation on the total number of committees. I hope that the proposed inquiry will take that very much into account. If there is to be a tapering off of the time spent in certain directions in this chamber and if that time is to be devoted to committee work, I hope that there will be a proper relationship between the 2 functions. But, whatever happens, we must ensure that the opportunity to do the kind of work that select committees are empowered to do is not lost. I refer to a statement made in a debate in 1970 by the Right Honourable William Whitelaw, the then Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. He said:

A sound select committee system is vital to the detailed probing and criticism of the Executive-

In other words, the Government- upon which both successful parliamentary democracy and good government depend.

What is meant by that and what I want to emphasise is that we must not take away the right of the Parliament to probe, to investigate, to call for information and to send for witnesses and the like through a properly constituted committee. We must not allow the Executive or the Government to use the system to intrude upon that right of Parliament, which goes back a very long way. If one has regard to the origin of committees one will find that they had their origin in the very early beginnings of parliamentary practice. It would be a great shame if any action taken by the proposed committee were in any way to break down that tradition. After all, it is fundamental to our ‘system of government - the Westminster system - for Parliament to have the right to question and to scrutinise, and if that right were taken away in any way it would give undue opportunities to the Executive or the Government to take action which might not be in the best interests of the people of the country. We do not want to see that happen, but we know that no matter who occupies the treasury bench there will always be that ambition. I hope that none of the political parties in this Parliament - none of the 3 political parties in this chamber anyhow - will in its enthusiasm to get a workable system take any action through the proposed committee that will turn us away from that fundamental because to do so would be to lose the very essence of the system which we regard as being the best system for this Parliament and which has been built up over so many years and is based on precedents which have proved to be right.

I was interested to hear the Leader of the House refer to the American system of government. I think that many of us have become very conscious of the worry of the people of the United States of America in the last year or so about the deficiencies of their system. So let us not move too much in that direction without having a very close look at those deficiencies. I will not say anything that reflects upon the Constitution of the United States of America or upon the way in which its parliamentary system has been built up, but I will make the observation that lessons can be learned from any system, whether it is the Westminster system, the American system or any other system. That must surely be a duty of the proposed committee. The proposed committee will have a task to perform that cannot be performed in a short period of time. It must be given, an adequate period of time in which to perform its task. 1 hope that the Leader of the House will plan to ensure that that is the way in which the task is undertaken. I support the proposition. I hope that every member of the House will take an interest in it because it concerns every member of this House and of the other place.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I find myself to be largely in agreement with the points made by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) and the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), who preceded me in this debate. I support the motion. I believe that an examination of the committee system will be worth while, as the Leader of the House has pointed out. Furthermore, I believe that an examination of the effectiveness of committees is something in relation to which all members of the Parliament can claim some expertise because not one of us would have become a member of Parliament without having attended many hundreds or perhaps thousands of committee meetings - and they are still going on. I think that members, as a class, are able to judge the usefulness or otherwise of committees as well as or better than anyone in the community.

I suspect that one of the reasons why this motion has been brought on so early in the session is to meet the wishes of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) - we have not heard very much from the Minister for the Capital Territory lately: so the name of his portfolio escaped my mind momentarily - who has some views on this subject and who has put them rather forcefully in the past. I presume that as a Minister he is still putting them forcefully. I think that this motion takes up the points that he wished to put forward in a proposition that he had in mind, although this motion calls for an inquiry and nothing specific.

The Leader of the House mentioned that some 40 committees have been created or are about to be created. That points up just what a plethora of committees we have indulged in. In the last few years they have become fashionable in this building. With due respect to the members of the other place, I say that in the last few years the Senate has got itself into a situation in which it has suffered indigestion from the number of committees that have been established. Some of the committees established by the Senate and the House of Representatives have been useful but others have not.

That leads me to the major point I want to make; which is, that we must be careful to ensure that we do not answer every complaint with the formation of a new committee of inquiry. We all know the pressure that is applied from outside of the Parliament, let alone from within it, by electors who feel concerned about some matter and who say: ‘Someone ought to look into this matter. I do not propose to put time into looking into it, but someone else ought to have a look into it’. Pressure builds up. Committees are established. Rooms are occupied. A highly paid staff is employed. The members of that staff have to come from somewhere. In fact, positions are created that are in effect partly in competition with the Public Service. After all, there are limited resources for staffing, and if a committee is not achieving any useful purpose or is not achieving very much of a purpose it is a waste of such resources.

I suggest too that we ought not to talk about copying the United States system too closely. Let us, as members of a parliamentary institution whose origins we understand and as people who have a knowledge of the way in which the institution has borrowed from the Westminster system, recognise that our system of government is not the same as the American system of government; that it is an entirely different system of government. If we are to have a committee system it must be a committee system that is different from that employed by the United States Congress. I do not wish to criticise the United States system. This is not the occasion on which to do so, even if I wanted to. But the point here is that it is a different system. Let us understand that it is different. I am sure that the proposed committee will receive plenty of evidence about the differences and will appreciate that our objectives are not in the same direction as the objectives of the United States system.

I make the point also that I believe that there is a growing belief by people of experience in the Senate and in this chamber that joint parliamentary committees have some disadvantages. We have a number of joint parliamentary committees. The fact that a committee is a joint parliamentary committee does not necessarily mean that it will operate more efficiently and that it will prevent overlapping and duplication. I hope that the propose.l committte will examine this point: There is much to be said for separate memberships of committees as between the chambers of this Parliament and there is something to be said against the establishment of joint parliamentary committees.

During the last almost 2 years I have served on the Joint Committee on Prices. I understand that that Committee is about to be reformed. I make the observation that that Committee was set up, in part anyway, in response to a public demand. Since its establishment the Prices Justification Tribunal has been set up. It, of course, has a large staff and it has much expertise available to it. I think that the useful existence of the Prices Committee could be questioned. I put it to the House that none of its recommendations has been followed by the Government. It cannot be shown that the Committee has been of value to anybody, except perhaps the Chairman who has received a good deal of publicity out of it. I am talking now about what has actually been achieved. I say to the House - I warn the House, if you like - that when the names are announced of those members of the Parliament who are to serve on that Committee in the future, if it is formed, it will see that not very many of the names of the members who served on it during the last Parliament are continuing. Whatever they say about the usefulness of the Committee, they will be voting with their feet.

I come back to my point that certainly we should have a look at the Committee system. We have too many committees. Such an examination will lead us to a consideration of what are the best avenues in which to spend our time. Of course, that necessarily will lead to occasions on which the Government or the House will say that we cannot have a committee inquire into such and such an area; that there may be some value in having such a committee but the time would be better spent in another direction. I support the motion. I believe it will help to rationalise the Committee system and, as the Leader of the House said, it will endeavour to integrate the Committee system into the procedures of the House. I think that is a very commendable objective.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I thank honourable members opposite for their constructive suggestions. Although they were critical of some aspects of the motion, undoubtedly its purpose is to attempt to overcome some of the problems that they mentioned. The proposition is to set up a joint committee. If there is some disagreement as regards the committee’s terms of reference, that is a matter which the Committee can consider. Without being unduly complimentary, I should suggest that the 2 honourable members who spoke would make admirable members of the proposed committee. In that way no doubt they would be able to give effect to what they have mentioned today. But all in all this is a genuine attempt, whatever might be read into it, to get a committee system that does formalise proceedings, instead of the system consisting of numerous committees which we have today. As I said earlier, it is an attempt to make the committee system an integral part of the workings of the Parliament. I thank honourable members opposite for their support.

I will not at this stage answer any of the questions that were raised. It is true that such a committee could consider the problems of staffing for new members, but I think all honourable members will agree that if this House were a concertina we would be set. But it is a problem, even when things are granted by Mr Speaker and others, to fit people into Parliament House. I hope that the next thing we debate in this Parliament will be the siting of the new and permanent Parliament House so that a decision can be taken and its construction commenced. Another problem that has arisen out of the development of our committee system is the need for space to house staff and additional members. However, I thank honourable members for their suggestions and I am hopeful that the Senate will agree to the motion also. In that way we will be able to set up a committee which ultimately will bring down recommendations to improve the present committee system.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 301

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 July (vide page 162), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The International Monetary Agreements Bill 1974, which is presently before the House, seeks parliamentary approval for the appropriation of USS4 1.14m to enable Australia to take up a special increase in its subscription stock to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly known as the World Bank.

This Bill was supported by the Opposition parties during the term of the twenty-eighth Parliament, and we support it again. The purposes of the Bill are consistent with the policies of the Opposition parties. We are firmly committed to support effective development programs of the type undertaken by the World Bank. Assistance for programs of this type of multilateral aid must be continued because of their intrinsic merit and as an essential component of Australian foreign policy. Successive Liberal-Country Party governments were conscious of the need to maintain subscriptions to the World Bank. Consistent with that policy we maintained a high level of support for other international aid and development organisations, such as those of the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank.

The total consideration to be approved under this legislation is US$4 1.1 4m. This sum represents the computed purchase cost of an additional 341 snares of voting stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The entitlement to the increased capital subscription accrued in 1970 when Australia, along with 74 other countries, was granted a special increase in its quota to the

International Monetary Fund. An implicit correlation has existed between International Monetary Fund quotas and subscriptions to the World Bank since the establishment of these 2 independent, albeit complementary bodies. Although these relativities have not been strictly formalised, Australia has always respected its commitments to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development as part of its ordering of international obligations. In essence, therefore, the Bill continues the policy of previous Liberal-Country Party governments by maintaining a parity between International Monetary Fund quotas and World Bank subscriptions.

As the Treasurer (Mr Crean) indicated in his second reading speech, 90 per cent of subscriptions will remain at call and 10 per cent or US$4.1 14m will be payable. The revaluations of the Australian dollar in December 1972 and September 1973, have, however, produced a de facto increase in the value of Australia’s existing contributions to the World Bank in excess of the sum required to take up this special increase in Australia’s subscription to the World Bank. Under the ‘maintenance of value’ provisions in its articles of agreement, the World Bank is required to repay to Australia the increased United States dollar value of its previous subscriptions. To obviate an unnecessary double transaction to and by Australia and to avoid any net impact of the present subscription on the Budget, it is understood that an undertaking with the World Bank will be negotiated to offset these respective payments. In real terms, therefore, no further outlay of funds is required.

In view of the inherent importance of recent exchange rate adjustments to the actual execution of this Bill, it is appropriate during this debate to comment briefly on the unsatisfactory nature of the Government’s exchange rate policy and to put forward the positive initiatives which have been developed by the Opposition parties. With inflation rapidly eroding the value of all major international currencies and with the structure of international monetary transactions in a state of flux, fixed exchange rate policies have, in our view, become demonstrably irrelevant and obsolete. In virtually all major trading nations such policies now have little more than historic significance. They in fact belong to a previous era when a strong United States dollar underwrote the stability of the whole international monetary system. As the importance of the United States dollar has declined as a unit of currency and become subject to marked variances in value, its relevance as a benchmark for the graduation of other currencies has, in like measure, diminished. In a logical response to a series of dollar crises, most major trading nations have floated their currencies, enabling them to find their real market value independent of United States dollar movements. This movement towards flexibility has provided an effective hedge against exogenous currency fluctuations.

Despite the international endorsement of such policies the Australian Government has maintained its policy of fixed exchange rates. In short, the Government has equivocated in an area of major consequence to Australia’s economic development. It has failed either to formulate or to implement an efficient exchange rate policy despite the developing balance of payments deficit.

Although agreement on a new monetary system is unlikely to be secured during 1974, a return to the old system of fixed exchange rates is no longer feasible. There is in fact general international agreement on the need for flexibility of exchange rates. Consistent with international rationale, the Liberal and Country parties are opposed to the maintenance of a fixed exchange rate policy and support its immediate abolition. It is simply inappropriate today to tie our currency to the United States dollar. A fixed tie with the United States dollar could be supported only as a first step on the path to monetary integration with the United States economy.

The Opposition believes that the arbitrary link between the Australian dollar and the United States dollar should be abandoned immediately. Variations in the Australian dollar should be calculated against changes in a weighted index of the currencies of our major trading partners. Subject to consultation with the Government, the Reserve Bank should be instructed to set a daily exchange rate for the Australian dollar against other currencies within a hand of between 3.5 per cent and 5 per cent of the initial rate within any 3-month period.

The New Zealand Government - a Labor Government - is now using a flexible exchange rate policy along lines similar to those which have been proposed by the Opposition in this national Parliament. The New Zealand system of exchange rate adjustment provides a clear example for the Australian Government. The Opposition views the adoption of a flexible exchange rate as a first step towards the development of a foreign exchange market in this country.

The fundamental requirement for a broader exchange market is the participation of nonresidents in the Australian market. At the present time the ‘spot’ exchange market - for conversion of different currencies - is based on our tie with the American dollar. Rates of exchange for the Australian dollar, against other foreign currencies are quoted independently to the Australian trading banks but they are based on rates of exchange between the. Americal dollar and other currencies on the London and New York markets. There is little variation in the rates quoted by different banks. The Reserve Bank discourages the trading banks from holding foreign exchange at risk against the American dollar. Indeed, the trading banks would not be willing to do this in the present market. The Reserve Bank covers the trading banks as far as the United States dollars and the pound stering are concerned. Therefore, if the banks are overbought in sterling on a particular day they can sell it to the Reserve Bank. The foreign exchange market in Australia is geared to trade transactions and _ permitted - mainly longer term - capital transactions. It is too small to enable a ‘free market price’ for the Australian dollar to emerge since the flow of currencies is not regular.

The development of a foreign exchange market would enable the Australian dollar to be floated. A ‘clean float’ of the dollar is not feasible in the near future but ‘dirty’ floating is possible. In other words, the Reserve Bank could continue to intervene in the exchange market to some extent with the probable intention of preventing short term irregularities in the market. There are, of course, a number of advantages in the development of a foreign exchange market in Australia. It would reduce the need for government administration of exchange rate policy and would allow market forces to obtain some influence. It would necessitate and facilitate the development of a more adequate forward exchange market. This is most important in a world of floating currencies. The Australian dollar would tend to be utilised to a greater extent than at present as a trading or vehicle currency and would encourage foreigners to use Australian insurance, discounting and other banking facilities.

The development of a foreign exchange, market would not necessarily mean a free float of the Australian dollar. The Reserve Bank could still intervene to place some limits on the short term fluctuations of the Australian dollar. The Opposition’s proposals reflect the general body of economic opinion in Australia. Time in this debate does not permit detailed reference to the many views of Australian economists. However, as recently as last week that eminent Melbourne economist, Professor James Perkins of the University of Melbourne, wrote in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ in the following terms:

We should allow the exchange rate to vary with the state of the country’s international transactions and international reserves. By failing to do this, by leaving it to chance that this will happen, we are denying ourselves the proper and full use of one very important instrument of economic policy and placing undue strain on the other major weapons - monetary policy, budgetary policy and prices and incomes policy . . .

Unfortunately many people in Australia have become so accustomed to thinking of capital inflow in the outdated context of a fixed exchange rate that they misguidedly think of it as inflationary. . . .

We could have had much less inflation in the past year if we had had more capital inflow and had used it to buy more imports.

The aims of policy should be to remove the various controls over capital inflow. They hurt Australian companies far more than those controlled overseas.

Such a move would be quite consistent with any general measures that were thought desirable to control or limit the extent of direct investment in Australia by overseas firms.

The move towards greater flexibility could be accompanied by the setting up of a foreign exchange market, or by the central bank changing its rate from day to day in such a way as to clear the market; or by some combination of these institutional arrangements.

Canada has had such an exchange rate policy for many years. New Zealand and South Africa, among others, have moved in that direction over the last 2 years.

There really is no reason for Australia to continue to pursue its present irrational exchange rate- policy.

Contrary to the continuing false and dishonest allegations made by Government supporters, the Opposition has developed a series of well considered, well documented and positive economic initiatives. The proposals in regard to the exchange rate of the Australian dollar, to which I have adverted in brief during the course of this debate, are a case in point. The Government and particularly the Treasurer appear to have studiously ignored the calls made by members of the Opposition parties for new exchange rate initiatives. I hope that during the course of this debate the

Treasurer or the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Stewart) - I note that he is in the chamber paying very real attention to this debate - will indicate whether the Government is prepared to consider the adoption of the policy which has been put forward or, alternatively, to outline in some meaningful detail why the Government continues its manic obsession with a fixed exchange rate policy which, as I have mentioned before, is manifestly archaic and no longer relevant to present economic circumstances. The Opposition parties support the Bill before the Chair.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– It is a pity that the Treasurer (Mr Crean) is not in the chamber on this occasion. 1 see that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Stewart) is here, but I remind the House that when this Bill was last before it the Treasurer was not here also. I believe it is justifiable to say that the place of any Minister is in the chamber when his Bill is being dealt with. I ask: ‘What more important matter can any Minister have than to be present and hear the debate in the national Parliament by the elected representatives of the people?’

This Bill has been before the House previously. As has been pointed out, the International Monetary Agreements Bill proposes that Australia should take up an additional entitlement to 341 shares in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The shares have an approximate value of S28m of which 10 per cent- say $2.8m- will be required to bring Australia’s total equity in the Bank to $643m, of which $64m has been provided in cash. The Bank borrows on fairly favourable terms on that equity investment and it passes on those favourable terms to the recipients of its activities - namely, the poorer member countries - in order, as the Treasurer has said, to encourage the best rate of economic growth and development. I had the pleasure of visiting, with considerable interest, some officers of the Bank late last year.

The Bank makes loans, broadly speaking, on commercial terms for economic projects related to capital works such as water, transport, power and primary production. More recently the Bank has engaged in a wider range of activities; more emphasis has been placed on social implications and necessarily less emphasis has been placed on economically viable projects. I do not think it is possible at this stage to express a view one way or the other on the efficacy of that policy change. One would have to look at each project on its merits to see how sound it is and how beneficial it is in its social objectives. I cannot say that the tendency itself, although much debated, worries me as much as it apparently worries some people who have expressed much concern. I believe that the Government is acting properly in making this increased equity contribution and that it is right in regarding the officers of the Bank as being the best people to decide what projects they should assist.

As has been stated, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is easily the biggest development finance body in the world, and I and the Opposition as a whole, I think, certainly agree with the Bill and generally with the comments made by the Treasurer in his second reading speech. I was pleased to see his reference to the bipartisan support of the Bank that has existed over the years. I see nothing against the discussions with the Bank on payments to and from the Bank because of the ‘maintenance of value’ provisions resulting from the revaluation of the Australian dollar as against the United States dollar.

The Treasurer referred to the reason why Australia has not taken up the shares previously. He said in his original second reading speech that it was because of budgetary restraint. But it ought to be mentioned in passing that at that time and previously a number of countries took the same view. Most countries did not take up their share entitlements immediately, but many have done so since, although some have not. I for one certainly believe that the time is now appropriate to take up that share entitlement. Perhaps it could have been done a little earlier. I noticed in the debate on this Bill last March that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) criticised the Opposition on this point in somewhat strong terms. I just make the additional comment that, although he talked about the great priority that should be given to this legislation, it ranked 237th in the Bills introduced by the Government in the previous Parliament. That indicates something about its priority to them.

I think, too, that in this whole area of aid - I referred to this in an earlier debate - that it is not only a question of what the donor countries should do, though their obligations are the greater. It is, after all, something of a 2-way process, and some countries have behaved in ways which have taken away to some extent the incentive of donor countries. I am thinking particularly of the effect on public opinion in the United States of America. 1 think that what has been done in this Bill is correct. It is part of our attitude to increase foreign aid by one means or another. I believe that the foreign aid to be given by Australia, in whatever sphere it may be, ought to be increased. The Government Party used to be very fond of talking about a mandate that it had received. Anybody who knows anything about constitutional practice and precedent - the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is a Queen’s Counsel, after all - knows that mandates are not a part of our electoral or democratic system. But, if ever a Government put forward strongly the view that it would increase foreign aid and drew attention to the needs of other countries and the capacity of Australia to increase foreign aid, it was this Government when it was first elected in December 1972. I point out to the House - I hope that the many supporters of the Government who are genuinely interested in the subject will confirm this by looking it up - that the expenditure on foreign aid since December 1972 has not been very impressive in comparative terms and has not been at all impressive in absolute terms. There has been a great deal of talk about what will be done, but honourable members should look at the figures of the payments and the schemes which have actually been supported.

I conclude by making a brief comment on the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) on floating the Australian dollar. I agree with what he said and I believe that the reasons for it he gave are valid. On balance, that is the proper course for Australia lo take, at the present time. We ought to remind ourselves that floating, whether ‘dirty’ or ‘clean’ floating, would not necessarily, de facto, result in devaluation, which seems to be the underlying assumption made by most commentators, in the newspapers at any rate. Why intervention by the central bank should be regarded as ‘dirty floating’ and why this pejorative adjective is tagged on to it is a matter for people interested in the origins of phrases to examine. But there is certainly nothing wrong with the Reserve Bank of Australia intervening in such cases. Why should we make it easy for speculators and those dealing in short term money to find a profitable haven here?

What we now have it 100 per cent intervention. Let us realise that. We have a fixed rate, and that is 100 per cent intervention. I believe that we ought to move to a situation where we have a floating dollar. Perhaps as an intermediate step we could do as the New Zealanders have done and link our currency with several currencies, and not just the United States dollar, and fix a rate each day. If we did that, we could go from there, to building up a market and having a floating dollar and, of course, intervention whenever those who are skilled in market operations believe that it will give us some overall stability. I support that view, which is certainly of importance and related to foreign aid. I support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 305

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 July (vide page 164), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Income Tax (Dividends and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill, as they are related measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LYNCH:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Flinders

– The Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974 seeks to eliminate an unintended exemption from the imposition of withholding tax of 10 per cent on interest paid to non-residents. It also seeks to bring the Income Tax Assessment Act into line with an amended pay structure in the armed forces and proposes a technical amendment related to contributions under the defence forces and parliamentary retirement benefits schemes. Its final purpose is to complete arrangements for the collection of company tax by quarterly payments.

The Income Tax (Dividends and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill 1974 is designed to expand the scope of the withholding tax as a levy so that it can be. applied not only to non-residents but also to Australian residents.

The Income Tax Assessment Act in its present form enables individuals or corporations to avoid withholding tax on interest by paying it through an overseas branch of a business carried on by an Australian resident. Under the existing legislation interest may be exempt from tax when the borrower is owned or controlled in Australia to an extent which is specfied in law. Interest payments can also be exempt if they are paid on funds borrowed overseas and used there by Australian enterprises conducting business through an overseas branch. However, in the past some financial institutions have utilised the latter exemption in a manner which was never intended under the legislation. They have sought to avoid interest withholding tax by raising loans through their foreign branches for use by their Australian clients irrespective of whether they are Australian-owned or controlled to the extent required under the legislation. Basically, they have sought through this arrangement to give interest paid on loans, from foreign branches to Australian enterprises, the effect of interest being paid from one resident to another. Such transactions have not therefore attracted withholding tax. Meanwhile, interest paid by resident intermediary institutions to non-resident lenders is claimed to be interest incurred by carrying on a foreign business. This again is not subject to withholding tax. If paid directly by the resident end user of the funds to the non-resident lender the interest would of course be subject to withholding tax.

The basic effect of legislation proposed in the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974 is subject to withholding tax interest paid from

Australia to a foreign branch of an Australian institution in specific circumstances; that is, 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. However, withholding tax will be payable only where it would have been subject to the tax if it had been received by a non-resident.

The Opposition Parties join with the Government in its concern to ensure that the taxation law as it stands should not be open to abuse by individuals or corporations seeking to minimise or eliminate completely the tax for which in fact they ought to be liable. We a:e also aware that the cost to the Australian revenue each year as a result of such tax avoidance is significant. We recognise, however, that, the dangers inherent in allowing in this case such a taxation loophole to continue are not related only to the loss of taxation revenue that it entails at present; they are of course also related to the capacity of certain transactions to frustrate the basic principles on which withholding tax is applied.

The previous Government introduced the interest withholding tax in June of 1968. From that time interest paid by Australians to non-residents was withheld by the Australian Government at a flat rate of 10 per cent. The withholding tax applied to interest paid to overseas lenders by residents or nonresidents, or by the Commonwealth or any Commonwealth or State agencies. In 1971 we amended the legislation to lessen the cost to Australians of borrowings overseas. This improved the opportunities for Australian participation in developmental enterprises requiring overseas capital, while maintaining the attractiveness of overseas investment in Australia. We sought to achieve these ends by amending the tax law to exempt from the payment of withholding tax interest payments made overseas on borrowings overseas by Australian-controlled companies for predominantly Australian-owned ventures. In addition, the exemption was provided to assist financing ventures with a substantial Australian equity participation. That legislation was designed to give further effect to the former Government’s policies designed to protect Australian equity and ownership.

However, it was never intended by the previous Government that this exemption be utilised to free from withholding tax interest which did not genuinely fit into these exempt categories. For these reasons we support the proposed legislation as we have supported other legislation in the past which has been designed to minimise the abuse of taxation laws. We also support the complementary amendments proposed which seek to identify clearly what constitutes interest paid to nonresidents incurred in carrying on overseas business and, therefore, is not liable to withholding tax. The complementary amendments also include technical proposals designed to prevent tax avoidance in other areas of taxation legislation which are modelled on the interest withholding taxation provisions. They relate to the source of royalties paid to nonresidents and to the source of both interest and royalties for the purpose of provisions to eliminate Norfolk Island as a tax haven.

A further purpose of the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974 is to bring the Act into line with the amended pay structure of the armed Services. The changes in pay structure followed the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Terms and Conditions for Male and Female Members of the Regular Armed Forces. This Committee was established by the former Government in 1970. We recognised at that time the need to review the principles by which the remuneration for members of the armed Services was determined. The Committee was asked to have special regard when reviewing the existing pay structure to the national requirement to attract and retain men and women with appropriate qualities, skills and experience. It was also asked to consider the rates of salary in other areas of Commonwealth employment and in the community generally. The Opposition Parties have, in principle, supported the findings of the Committee and consequently support these legislative amendments which are pursuant to the Committee’s recommendations.

Basically, the new structure was framed on the broad basis that allowances should be taxable with the exception of those allowances in the nature of reimbursements for outofpocket expenses. These are of a kind which the Woodward Committee envisaged would be free of tax but which would not necessarily be protected from tax by the general operation of the income tax law. The allowances involved are child education allowances payable to servicemen posted to a new location, generally to cover extra costs associated with the continued education of a child at the former location, separation allowances, livingout allowances, living away from home allowances and retention of lodgings allowances.

The Bill also gives effect to a decision by this Government to exempt from income tax bounties of §1,000 payable to defence force personnel whose service is to continue for at least 3 years after the completion of a qualifying period of service. The Opposition supports this proposal. We hope it may encourage reenlistments in the armed forces and will perhaps in small measure assist in offsetting the downturn in defence enlistments caused by the Government’s general downgrading of the armed forces of this country. I understand that since the end of 1973 the number of permanent male members of the Army to May 1974 fell by almost 600 to 28,800 servicemen.

The Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974 takes account of the present changes to the Defence Force and Parliamentary Retirement Benefits Fund. In past years, members of the Australian Parliament and members of the defence forces have been entitled to deductions subject to a maximum limit of $1,200 for life insurance premiums and contributions to a superannuation fund. This concession has, of course, been applicable to contributions made to their respective retirement funds. However, recent changes have resulted in contributions being no longer paid into these funds but instead into consolidated revenue. Accordingly, the Bill seeks to ensure that contributors will not be deprived of the traditional taxation concessions simply because of the change in the destination of the contributions. The Opposition, of course, supports this amendment which is really of a purely technical nature as it seeks to overcome any difficulty which may prevent this concession from operating in the way in which it was intended to operate - that is, that it should apply to all individuals.

Finally, the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974 contains provision in respect of the collection of company tax by quarterly payments. The Treasurer first foreshadowed plans for this scheme in his Budget Speech. The first step in its implementation was taken when most companies were required to pay an instalment of tax in January this year which was to be credited against tax due on 1972-73 income. The Bill amends the provisions covering the first stage to make provision for the implementation of the 2 latter stages. The Bill provides for the collection of 2 instalments during the current financial year, 1974-75, and 3 instalments during each subsequent year. The scheme will then be fully operational with 4 quarterly payments of tax being payable by companies from 1975-76 onwards.

In previous debates, the Opposition has emphasised that, notwithstanding the Government’s promise not to increase company tax rates, the introduction of quarterly collection of company tax amounts, in effect, to a substantial increase in tax liability. As a result of this legislation, companies are deprived of the use of operating funds. The drain on company liquidity arising from quarterly tax collection has, of course, been greatly exacerbated by the misconceived monetary policies which are being pursued by the present administration.

Mr Stewart:

– That is not right.

Mr LYNCH:

– The Minister assisting the Treasurer - himself most noticeable for his absence of comments on these fundamental matters of economic consequence to the nation - says: ‘That is not right’. I wonder whether the Minister thinks that there is now a credit squeeze operating, because at last the Federal Treasurer has been prepared to indicate that a credit squeeze is in fact current. If the Minister wants to engage with me - through the Chair, of course - in a dialogue on these matters I would be very grateful indeed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! I do not think that that would have very much to do with the Bills.

Mr LYNCH:

– As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the policies which the Government has been pursuing in the monetary field are misconceived policies and were strongly criticised by the Opposition parties during a debate on a matter of public importance in this House last week. At that stage, I pointed out that, in fact, we had a Treasurer who has been on record for some considerable period as denying the very existence of a credit squeeze but who is now prepared to admit that a credit squeeze is operating with all of the adversity which we know to exist at present. The broad policy decisions made by the Government during the course of the past week must dispel any lingering doubts as to the intensity and severity of the present policy of monetary restraint. The real tragedy is that the current level of interest rates is not a mandatory requirement for curbing inflation in this or any other country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should return to the Bills being debated.

Mr LYNCH:

-With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would think that if you had regard to the substance of the Bills you would find that one of the important proposals which is inherent in the legislation is the payment of quarterly company tax and, of course, that matter is very relevant to the financial circumstances which now exist.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It would be very interesting if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would link his comments to the Bills before the House.

Mr LYNCH:

– What I was emphasising in that sense was that, given the purposes of corporations and individuals everywhere in the context of the Bill before the House and given a comprehensive and integrated antiinflationary policy, there now would be room for a general easing of credit. However, I do not canvass that issue today except to say that the inadequacy of the Government’s response to economic matters raised in economic debate in this chamber is, in fact, a cause for considerable concern.

The provisions of the Income Tax (Dividends and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill 1974 are entirely complementary to the changes proposed by the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974. We therefore support both Bills before the House with the reservations and comment which have been made and assure the Government of the co-operation of the Opposition parties in ensuring their speedy passage through both Houses of this Parliament.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I was pleased to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) say that the Opposition supports this legislation inasmuch as it applies to the closing of a tax loophole. I might add that the present attitude of honourable members opposite is in strange contrast to their attitude when in Government, when they showed an amazing inactivity in the introduction of legislation to close tax avoidance loopholes. As was explained by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his second reading speech on 1 1 July 1974, this Bill has 4 main purposes. Firstly, its purpose is to close avenues for avoidance of withholding tax on interest on foreign loans; secondly, it is designed to deal with the liability to tax of allowances and benefits received by members of the defence forces under the new pay code; thirdly, it will deal with the deductions for contributions for retirement benefits by members of the Australian Parliament and members of the defence forces; and, finally, it involves the phasing in of arrangements for the collection of company tax by quarterly payments. Other than the provisions concerning collecting of company tax, this Bill is identical with the Income Tax Assessment Bill which lapsed upon the double dissolution of the Parliament.

On 2 July 1973 the Treasurer announced that the Government had decided to introduce amendments to correct a deficiency in the 10 per cent withholding tax on interest paid to overseas lenders by Australian residents or by non-residents who use overseas borrowings in an Australian business. There are loopholes which need to be closed and this Bill seeks to do just that. Some financial institutions have sought to take advantage of these loopholes. These financial institutions, which have foreign branches, have sought to obtain exemption from the withholding tax in respect of loans raised through their foreign branches for use not only by those who are Australian owned and controlled to the required extent but also by any Australian clients at all. The loss in revenue by allowing this to happen is considerable and the Treasurer is to be congratulated on bringing in this legislation which closes up yet another tax loophole.

It is no secret that getting through the loopholes, or tax avoidance as it is commonly called, is a game which is practised by skilled legal practitioners acting on behalf of their wealthy clients. It is also no secret that the previous Liberal-Country Party governments did very little to plug the loopholes, and understandably so, as they had no wish to hurt their wealthy supporters. In sharp contrast is the record of this Government. Legislation has been quickly enacted since December 1972 to close tax loopholes which have been used for years. No one can guess how many hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost to the revenue in years gone by due to the inaction of previous Liberal-Country Party governments. That tax burden had to be borne by those who were least able to afford to pay their taxes.

This legislation relates to another example of a tax avoidance scheme which is now being closed off. I wish to quote from an address given by the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Edward Cain, to the Institute of Chartered Accountants on 7 June 1974. Amongst other things, Sir Edward Cain said:

As Commissioner I am accustomed to rebukes. I expect them. No one concerned with advising a Government on tax avoidance measures, with instructing the Parliamentary Counsel on remedial legislation and with administering such legislation could hope to escape criticism. Criticism of tax avoidance legislation does not come from the overwhelming bulk of the taxpaying community. This great mass of people rarely has the desire or, indeed, the opportunity to practice tax avoidance, and it does not waste sympathy on those who can and do practice avoidance.

He went on:

A law that seeks to check tax avoidance - and for that matter, tax law in general - must often be arbitrary in its principles. Those that practice tax avoidance use devious and minutely planned schemes. They must expect that remedial legislation will, in turn, be devious and complex and lengthy. It is no use filling one hole in a sieve if 100 others remain open. It is no use filling those 100 other holes if the remaining metal in the sieve has undisclosed weaknesses. So it is with tax avoidance legislation. It must seek to stop all disclosed leaks in the law and provide for others that may come to light.

This is an example of what has happened. The Bill presently before the House is an attempt to plug those leaks.

Sir Edward Cain said further: … tax avoidance legislation attracts no criticism from the great bulk of the community and any criticism by the accounting profession, whilst understandable, should divorce itself from emotion and should encompass an acknowledgment of the fact that one has to meet fire with fire. There will, of course, always be criticism from those who themselves practice tax avoidance but this is hardly a matter for any concern.

He stated also:

It is . . . misleading to describe the payment of tax as a burden. More correctly it is the cost to us of living in Australia and enjoying the Australian standard of life. It is the price we pay for the way we live and for the facilities provided by our Government. Tax becomes a true burden when it is unfairly shared. One is only burdened with tax when he pays more in tax from his annual state of wellbeing than does his neighbour who enjoys the same level of wellbeing but contrives to escape his proper tax. In this situation tax does become a burden, but it is a burden which is a creature of the tax avoider. … tax avoidance is practised by the few at the expense of the many. Tax avoidance schemes are devious and go to extreme lengths in creating unreal and labyrinth-like situations, and they have to be fought with legislation which is difficult to frame and often difficult to follow.

The taxation legislation now before us, I think, falls within that category: A great deal of it is difficult to understand and to follow, but it is absolutely necessary.

I heartily agree with the sentiment of the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Edward Cain, and I congratulate him on his outspokenness. Over the years, Australia has been blessed with capable and honest Commissioners of Taxation and taxation officers. It is only when we as legislators follow their advice that we will have a fair and equitable taxation system and revenue laws.

I wish to raise one point in relation to a matter mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). I refer to the new part of this legislation, which was not included in legislation previously introduced, bringing companies into line, with other sections of the community with respect to payment of taxation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that companies are to be deprived of the use of funds by the payment of company tax in quarterly instalments. I notice that when the Opposition parties were in government they had no compunction about introducing legislation to require wage earners to pay out of their weekly earnings their share of the taxation burden, not in quarterly payments but each week. Nor did they have any sympathy for other businesses.

I would suggest that there is a little bit of pious hypocrisy in the words used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in attempting at this stage to try to hammer the Government, as he was trying to do by claiming that we were by this legislation placing companies in an impossible situation. All that has happened is that these companies now are being put in the same situation as has applied for many, many years to wage earners and businesses. I congratulate the Treasurer on bringing this piece of legislation down. If in the future there are any further tax loopholes that need closing, I hope that the Treasurer will have no hesitation in bringing down the necessary remedial legislation.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

- Mr Deputy Speaker, as my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), has already indicated the Opposition is not opposing these Bills. It is not my intention to delay the House unduly by speaking at any length or covering at length the ground that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has covered. With respect to those sections which relate to amendments that are designed to correct an apparent deficiency in the interest withholding tax provision, the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has pointed out that a number of companies have borrowed overseas on behalf of companies not owned and operated to the extent specified by law for those companies to be regarded as Australian owned and controlled. The Treasurer has described the loss to the revenue as considerable. It seems to me that this Bill does aim to deal with the situation of revenue loss. I think this Bill is a genuine attempt to achieve a situation in which enterprises that are not defined as Australian owned and controlled shall bear Australian tax. The Opposition offers no opposition to these provisions. We give our concurrence to the proposal, despite the remarks made by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) concerning previous Liberal-Country Party governments, with which I do not concur.

The Opposition does concur with a number of other provisions contained in the Bill. Those provisions seek to implement the recommendations of the Woodward Committee. Specifically, the re-engagement bounty payable to a member of the defence forces is to be exempted from taxation. The Opposition has no quarrel with this. We agree that this treatment of allowances seems also to be acceptable and reasonable and enables allowances to be treated for income tax purposes in the ways envisaged by the Woodward Committee. The provision relating to payments to certain superannuation funds is of course a technical and necessary amendment. The original fund, as I understand it, into which these payments were made has disappeared and payments are now made directly to Consolidated Revenue. The amendment was necessary to reserve this deductibility. The Opposition has no quarrel with that provision.

The other provision of the Bill deals with the further and final phasing in of the payments of quarterly instalments of tax by companies in 2 or more stages. This provision was announced in the last Budget and, subsequently legislation provided the first phase involving a payment of an instalment in January 1974. I am sorry that the Treasurer is not present in the House because he might remember that at that time I expressed some points of view in a speech in this House regarding the effect on private companies of changes contained in that Budget. I will relate what I said then to this Bill. I spoke then on the rather harsh provision of equating private and public company tax while retaining for private companies the penalty of the need for a sufficient distribution and an undistributed profits tax. I know that this matter was brought to the attention of the Treasurer from other quarters. I hope it is receiving consideration. This is relevant because it has meant compulsory distribution of profits that limited, as I said, the opportunity for capital expansion and also the provision of adequate liquid funds. The follow-on is that the plan to implement quarterly instalment taxation payments does warrant further examination in view of a number of serious complications not unrelated to the comment I have just made. It does impose a very big hardship on companies which have suffered reverses by way of significant profitability decreases.

As the quarterly instalments are calculated on the previous full taxation year, such a situation - many companies are in this category due to a number of economic factors - is very real. Serious liquidity problems arise as the quarterly assessments are excessive because in a year of lesser profit they are related to a previous period of greater profit. It is true that there is some provision for application for variation somewhat similar to the provision for variation of provisional taxation levied on individuals, but as one who has had some considerable accountancy experience I stress that this is not quite as sympathetic as it may appear. It can and does involve additional accountancy, more frequent balancing and considerable attention to forward predictions of trading results which must necessarily be responsible. I know that for individuals a penalty is imposed for irresponsible selfassessment which must be within certain limits. These are difficult problems. They involve extra accounting and budgetary work and possibly considerable additional accountancy charges or expenditure, or additional staff, perhaps on penalty rates - and all of this in a year of decreased profitability.

Whichever course is chosen it does pose some difficulty. The choice may well be liquidity problems if the quarterly instalments are met or additional costs - completely unproductive - to obtain a variation. In our present climate I think this is significant, particularly at this time when interest rates are so astronomical, credit is so severely restricted and a number of companies will have extreme difficulty because of the implementation of the extra taxation instalments. We do not criticise the principle of these instalments being introduced. What we are saying is that the timing is most unfortunate. The tightness of the monetary programs, tight liquidity and the intense credit squeeze seem to me to be factors which make this a most unfortunate time for the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to implement these next 2 progressive phases of quarterly payments. From my own observations, experience and many discussions, this is not a red herring. It is a matter of real concern. It is reality. I do not want to thump a political drum but it is well realised that considerable and frequent increases in award wages and salaries - a cost which is very often a considerable percentage of total cost to the company - the considerable and frequent price increases in materials and supplies, the extra cost of extensions to holiday pay and long service leave and loadings, combined with the direct increase in private company taxation in the last Budget - there was a direct increase - and the announced further increase in private company tax this year to equate it with public company taxation, are not immediately or completely recoverable in income earned. There is either a permanent drop in net income, that is if the economies of larger scale production are not immediately possible, or liquidity difficulties.

In a time of what we can call a credit squeeze - whatever the Treasurer does call it - this can seriously jeopardise the capacity of some companies and individual businessmen to carry on in business. This is a real problem. I have found this in my own practical experience. I have spoken to a lot more people perhaps than the Minister may realise. But this is fact and it is something about which I am concerned. For example, I know of co-operatives which are experiencing severe liquidity problems. They are in the position of having to appeal for loans at 12 per cent for 3 months to assist them. This additional tax obligation which the co-operatives have not budgeted for is particularly serious at this time. It should be remembered that they provide significant employment and they are faced with the possibility of having to reduce their labour force.

I have dealt with this provision in the Bills at some length. I want the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Stewart), and the Treasurer to be fully aware of the situation and the practical result of the implementation of this provision in the present climate. The fact is that there must necessarily be a recognition that consideration and leniency willbe essential if this part of the legislation proceeds. I just hope that the Treasurer and the Minister assisting the Treasurer are fully aware of and alert to these facts and that they will ensure that consideration will be given where severe difficulties exist, as they do in some cases.

Again I reiterate that we do not oppose the Bills nor do we seek to delay their passage. I hope the remarks that I have offered will be accepted as sincere because they are the facts as I have found them. They are meant to be constructive; they are realistic and I hope they are informative. They are facts that must not be overlooked.

Another fact that is relevant is that I have been advised quite often that the Taxation Office has, in the last taxation year 1972-1973, been somewhat more severe in granting extensions of time for payment of taxation. Extensions were more easily obtainable in the past. If a person paid primary tax and applied for an extension, where difficulty was recognised by the Office, it was acceptable to the Office to receive a post-dated cheque for the provisional sum. These arrangements were made with the Taxation Office. This course was not followed this year and banks were far from helpful in advancing temporary accommodation to assist taxpayers in this position. It is with this background that I find it necessary to appeal to the Minister assisting the Treasurer for assurances that, where necessary, there will be a measure of understanding and co-operation combined with the further phasing in of the quarterly tax instalments in advance of the end of the financial year at 30 June.

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 Stewart) read a third time.

page 311

INCOME TAX (DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST WITHHOLDING TAX) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11 July (vide page 165), 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 Stewart) read a third time.

page 312

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 July (vide page 1 80), on motion by Mr Enderby: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– The Opposition will support this Bill. Like the Government, the Opposition is most anxious to ensure that persons who seek to escape the process of justice by going abroad are returned to be dealt with in accordance with Australian law. I remind honourable members that the purpose of this Bill, as stated, is to permit the application of the Act more readily to countries which offer reciprocity of treatment to Australia under their domestic law. Extradition, of course, has been a matter of great importance between states. In contrast to deportation and expulsion it is a bi-lateral act. It depends on the existence of some agreement or some arrangement between states, or at least a request _ for the handing over of a person by one State and a response from the other state. So far as English law is concerned, the matter of extradition has been so fundamental that at a very early stage, in order to prevent people being subject to arbitrary arrest, it was required that there be some provision of a statute to authorise even the arrest of a foreigner who was sought by a foreign State. So arose the modern statute law which we have today. Of course this law is based on the principle of reciprocity. In the past under the Australian system there has been a need to find a treaty or at least some matter of arrangement between the 2 countries concerned. Of course treaty has been the usual method. However, in more recent times a number of countries have been unwilling to enter into treaty. The result has been that under our law it has not been possible to obtain the extradition of a person from those countries unless we could guarantee reciprocity. The present Bill is aimed at enabling this to be done.

As I have said, the Opposition supports this measure because, in relation to countries like Brazil which take this attitude, it will enable our Government, through the processes of law, to obtain the return of people from other countries where they are hiding from Australian justice. The amendment to the Act which is clause 3 of the Bill ensures that there must be a law of a foreign State which would, with or without any limitations etc., permit the surrender to Australia of persons accused or convicted of extraditable crimes within the meaning of Part IV. That satisfies the basic requirement of our law that a person shall not be subject to arrest unless there is some provision of a law authorising that arrest. This clause ensures that the GovernorGeneral must be satisfied about that fact. Of course it does commit to the GovernorGeneral the right of satisfaction as to that matter. He has to be satisfied that the law is of that character. However, at the same time one finds that that is completely consistent with the provisions of section 10 of our Act which, in relation to a treaty, enables the Governor-General by regulation to provide that the State is one to which the Act applies, it having satisfied the. requirements of section 10 and other sections of the Act.

The third thing to which I refer in the Bill is that the regulations may provide that the Act applies in relation to that foreign State. As I indicated earlier, that is the system which applies at present where a treaty has been entered into. So this Bill is completely consistent in that regard. Again, it provides that extradition may be carried out subject to limitations, conditions, exceptions or qualifications. This too is consistent with the present provisions relating to the application of the existing Act to countries with which Australia has a treaty. In other words, this Bill finds our support because in principle it satisfies the requirements of the existing law which finds its origin in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. It was passed by the previous government. Being consistent with those principles we are very content to support this Bill.

But as I said earlier, we are content to support it because, in addition, it will enable persons who are seeking to avoid justice of this country to be returned here but under proper process. Insofar as it extends, say, to a country like Brazil, the provisions of our law are not a problem because it means only that the requirements of Part Til of our Act will have to be satisfied. That is to say, a person who is a foreigner in our country, whom it is sought to extradite, will have all the protection which Part III of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act now gives. Of course to some extent that protection is in the hands of the Attorney-General. Certain discretions are conferred on the Executive but in essence the Bill does conform with the spirit and intendment of the existing Act. The Opposition is happy to support it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I have very much pleasure in supporting the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill because it does not in any way detract from the protections which are given under the existing Act to people who would otherwise be liable to extradition. But in supporting the Bill I draw the attention of the House to weaknesses in the existing Act. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) has referred to Part III of the existing Act which gives protection, firstly, of a court hearing, and secondly, of the discretion of the AttorneyGeneral. A court hearing is all very well but let us remember that Communist countries are able to produce perjury and forgery at their will. If, for political purposes, they want the extradition of an innocent person they will be able to produce in Australia false and perjured evidence of crimes such as murder, larceny or whatever it may be. They do this kind of thing because this is of the nature of what is known as Communist justice. If that be so, the ultimate protection is in the discretion of the Attorney-General. Unhappily when the present Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) came into office one of his first published statements was to the effect that he would have a lot of Yugoslavs extradited. He has aligned himself with the Communists. Let us be quite clear on this. Let every migrant know that we now have an Attorney-General who is on the Communist side in relation to extradition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)I ask the honourable member to return to the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– But this is the Bill, Sir. This is right on the Bill. For example, what happens if somebody in China such as the great friend of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), that evil goon Chairman Mao, wanted to extradite somebody from Australia, perhaps some Taiwanese whose only crime was that he opposed the Communist regime? Chairman Mao would be able to produce for the courts here false and forged documents, forged and perjured evidence. That is all available to a Communist dictator. Of course the courts would have to act on that evidence. The only protection lies in the discretion of an Attorney-General. We have seen that this Government has an Attorney-General who is on the Communist side in this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The House is not considering the conduct of the Attorney-General. It is discussing the legislation before the chamber.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Exactly, and I am speaking of the conduct of the AttorneyGeneral in regard to this legislation. I refer to section 14 of the principal Act in which the ultimate discretion is given to the Attorney-General.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I propose to put forward some of the views of the lay people of Australia on this important piece of legislation - the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill. I have always been interested in legislation of this nature. I recall speaking at an InterParliamentary Union conference in Brasilia in 1962 when the subject of extradition arrangments between the countries of the world was open for debate. I think I disappointed some of the members of the American delegation on that occasion when I advocated from the rostrum that extradition treaties should exist between all countries and that the country aggrieved or the country in which the crime was committed should have to establish only a prima facie case in the country from which it was seeking to extradite a person.

In that debate at the IPU conference in Brasilia great concern was expressed about responsible heads of state who were fleeing from different countries and carting the till with them and depositing the money in banks in Switzerland. It was suggested that, if the aggrieved country could prove within a month that the money was taken from it, it should be able to recoup the money. I said then that that suggestion did not go far enough and that the evil-doer should be brought back. The only regret I have about this legislation is that it has taken until this part of the 1970s for it to be introduced. We are living in a time when air travel around the world is so common and so frequently practised that professional criminals are moving around the world with the ease with which honourable members move from this chamber to the dining room. I have been thinking about asking the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to put on a special flight from Brazil to Australia to carry the crook company directors who have been fleeing to Brazil in recent times to obtain immunity from prosecution. Heaven only knows how many of them are over there now.

Two of Australia’s greatest and most eminent counsel - a former Solicitor-General who is now the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) and a former distinguished lecturer in law at the Australian National University who is now the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and honourable member for Canberra (Mr Enderby) - have participated in this debate. Both of them have agreed that no loopholes will be detected in this legislation by people in their profession. I hope that I will be spared for long enough to see how this legislation stands up to the test in the courts of Brazil or of other countries. As legal men of such eminence as the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and the former Solicitor-General have put so much study and skill into the legislation’s formation, implementation and passage through the Parliament I do not think that many loopholes will be found in it.

When one stops to think about what brought about the introduction of this legislation it is very easy to arrive at a conclusion. We know that a man named Barton has defeated the efforts of the Commonwealth to have him extradited back to New South Wales to stand trial after fleecing shareholders in the Australian community of approximately $22m.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Your party has taken millions off the stock exchange.

Mr JAMES:

– I do not punt on the stock exchange because I have no confidence in many of the people who operate on it. They pump up the shares today and let them down tomorrow. I have my own opinion about that type of person. However, it is a part of our system. Many crook company directors today are taking advantage of the frailties of the stock exchange and the frailties of our laws in regard to bringing them back from certain countries. I think it is the wish of all honourable members in this House and of many thousands of decent Australians that this law be effective. One should stop to think about what has happened to Ronald Biggs, the great train robber. He was one of a gang of expert British criminals who in August 1963 knocked off £Stg2,631,784, of which each received about £Stg 120,600.

Mr Nicholls:

– The police will get him in due course.

Mr JAMES:

– They did. They got Wilson, Reynolds and Biggs, who escaped from prison. They got all of them. Biggs was the test. But Britain, with all its traditions and all its skills in law-making, which have been passed down to our proud country, has been unable to get Biggs back from Brazil. Why? Because he is supposed to be the father of a girl’s unborn child. I wonder whether the honourable member for Wentworth and the Minister for Manufacturing Industry will be able to ease my mind as to whether this legislation would break down if Barton were to be brought into court in Brazil in relation to his extradition to Australia, with his skilled and wise lawyer, Mr Gruzman, Q.C., who recently flew to Brazil to interview him, and if Barton were to say: ‘I have Margaret Abertito in the family way’. I hope that the former Solicitor-General will be able to advise me on that aspect because I think many Australians would like to know. I do not think it would be possible to introduce a foreign states extradition law that covered a situation such as that. It is a bit of hypocrisy that the laws of Brazil prevent a man from being extradited, no matter how serious the crime he committed in the country seeking his extradition, because he climbed into bed with a girl who now says that she is pregnant to him. I think that makes hypocrisy of the law, no matter what country’s law it is. I hope that this legislation will prevent such a thing from happening.

Crime today has become a national sport in the Western democracies. British safe-breakers move around Europe at the invitation of European criminals. They are supreme in their own particular craft. That is why they are invited to move around Europe. They have become great operators in certain jobs. They get firstclass air fares both ways and are treated with lavish hospitality.

Mr Daly:

– Who is this?

Mr JAMES:

– The professional criminals who move around the world. My point is: Will this law permit the extradition of people from all countries? We know that it will not. I have here a book which refers to the activities of the British criminals and safebreakers. It says that he operates with the skill of a Harley

Street surgeon and that he has an assistant to hand his instruments to him while he is doing the job. The book states that one good thing about this type of crime in Britain is that it has made Britain the leading nation in the world in producing safes. The British criminal is so skilled at breaking into safes that the safe industry in Britain leads the world.

I believe that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and the honourable member for Wentworth, whom I mentioned previously, should push further ahead with this type of law and should use their influence in obtaining extradition treaties with other countries, whether or not they are Soviet bloc countries. A university student rang me from Sydney the other day. He said that he was doing some research, and the results of that research would probably amaze and surprise honourable members. This research has established that in the last 12 months 135 ten to sixteen-year old Australian girls are missing without trace. This university student was expressing concern that probably they have been kidnapped and taken over to some of the Middle East countries that are known for slave trading. I do not know whether the Minister for Manufacturing Industry or the honourable member for Wentworth can tell me whether this legislation would be effective in Saudi Arabia or some other of those Middle East countries to which it might ultimately be revealed that some of these 135 teenage children from Australia, who are generally fair haired and blue-eyed, have been taken in a drugged state. Anyway, this research has been done. I welcome the legislation. I applaud my Government and the Minister for Manufacturing Industry for its introduction. I will watch with passionate interest to see whether it is really effective.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– In reply - The eloquence of some of the contributions to the debate demands a short reply, it seems to me. May I say at the outset that the Government welcomes the support given to this legislation by the LiberalCountry Party Opposition. May I say also that I personally welcome the support given to the measure by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott). I hope that this support for this measure is an indication of good things to come, although I do not expect that we will always find the same degree of agreement from the honourable member in relation to other matters. We all welcome the contribution made by the hon ourable member for Hunter (Mr James). The degree of mobility of people who offend against the laws of some country and then flee to another country is increasing greatly in the world today. The world is in a transitional stage.

I do not claim for one moment, and I do not think the Government claims - indeed, it cannot - that this measure provides all the protection for which the honourable member for Hunter asks. The honourable member raised many points. But the measure is a small step towards achieving something that was expressed many years ago by a prominent American politician of the 1940s - a man called Wendell Wilkie - who spoke in book form and in other forms of one world. 1 think it is an indication of the enclosing of the world in a smaller compass, brought about by improved transport and communications, that measures of this sort are now desirable, so that when a person flees from justice or from the jurisdiction of one particular country he is, in one way or another, more likely to be caught and brought before justice pursuant to legislation of this sort and agreements in the form of treaties. I welcome the support of the Opposition for this measure. We hope that when the legislation becomes law it can bring about the results we are all seeking.

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 Enderby) read a third time.

page 315

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 July (vide page 250), on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– The Opposition will support this measure, subject to certain amendments which have been circulated and with which I will deal later in my speech. This Bill contains a large number of provisions which are needed to enable the printing of the consolidation of the Commonwealth statutes or what honourable members on the other side of the House refer to as the Australian statutes. There is one place in which one cannot as yet refer to the Commonwealth of Australia as Australia, and that is in the High Court of Australia. In the High Court reference is still made to the Commonwealth of Australia, but that is because the High Court follows the Constitution. Much of this Bill is taken up with amending the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ to ‘Australia’ and the words ‘Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia’ to Territory’. Of course, it is very good that Acts be shortened in this way. What is very good also, of course, is the fact that the Commonwealth statutes are being consolidated; that is something that needs to be done. This work is the more tedious part of law reform. One has great sympathy for the draftsmen of our Commonwealth. They work long hours and they have tedious work to perform. It is one of those unrewarding parts of the lawyer’s life, although it is rewarding in another sense because they perform a creative work. I would like, at this first opportunity of doing so, to pay a tribute to the draftsmen of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the work that they do in maintaining a service to this Parliament.

Although it is perhaps a little aside from the debate, I would like to advert to one matter which I think is important. One of the things I have noticed since I have become a member of this place is that in no member’s room does one find copies of the statutes of this Parliament.

They may be found in the rooms of some honourable members, but not in many of them. May I suggest that consideration be given to making available to honourable members, when the consolidation is completed, copies of the statutes of our Commonwealth. There is something a little odd in members of Parliament not having ready reference to the statutes of our Parliament. I would commend that idea to the House Committee or to the Attorney-General.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do you mean they would be available on request by the member to the House Committee?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Yes, or, if it is a matter for the Attorney-General, then to the AttorneyGeneral. However, it does seem to me to be worth while considering. I referred earlier to some proposed amendments. I have provided copies to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby). They arise out of a debate on the Public Service Act (No. 4) 1973 that took place in the Senate on 13

December of last year. That legislation was rushed through at the last minute, and in the process it took out of the Public Service Act the oaths and affirmations that it was necessary for public servants to make when they became members of the Public Service. At that time the Attorney-General undertook to the Senate that he would bring back to the House this year - if that Bill was allowed through, as it was - a measure to enable that particular matter to be debated. The Opposition regards this as a proper procedure by which to allow that particular matter to be brought back before the Parliament in accordance with the Attorney-General’s undertaking.

The amendments that have been notified to the House will be moved in the Senate. I have given notice of them. The Opposition’s agreement to this measure is subject to those amendments being moved. I will give a further indication of. them when we go into Committee on this Bill but at this stage - the second reading debate - I just wanted to indicate the scope of those amendments. I shall not read them. The Minister has a copy of them. They are all aimed at bringing back into the Public Service Act the requirement, which we on this side of the House regard as appropriate and necessary in the Public Service, that there be an oath or an affirmation of allegiance on the part of public servants. It has been so in this Commonwealth since Federation and we on this side of the House see no need to take it out. Indeed, we see every need to leave it in because it binds the servant - the public servant - to the Crown. It is not the ordinary relationship of employer and employee, no matter how much the Government may wish to make it so. It is a distinct and different form of service. It always has been; it always will be. The purposes of these amendments are to reinsert in the Public Service Act those particular provisions. Subject to that, we on this side of the House support the measures in the Statute Law Revision Bill now before the House.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– in reply - The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) indicated that in the Committee stage of the Bill certain amendments would be moved. The difficulty that the Government has with this proposition is that the amendments have nothing at all to do with the measure before the House.

We are debating the Statute Law Revision Bill and, as my honourable friend said, the community, the society as a whole, Australia, has a great need of law reform of this sort. The last consolidation of the Commonwealth statutes of the Australian statutes - call them what you will - was as long ago as 1950, and they are hopelessly out of date. Although it is not my wish to be unnecessarily political in this debate, I think it is to the discredit of the previous Government that for so long it did nothing about remedying that very bad situation.

Lawyers know how difficult it is to find the law. If I look at the volumes of Commonwealth statutes which almost cover the table in front of me I find that all except perhaps five or six are supplements that follow the consolidation in 1950. Every one of them is different. I look to the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock), a man who comes to this House with some experience in these matters. He knows how difficult and time consuming it is to find the law. Lawyers have to charge for their time and they pass the cost on to their clients who often would rather not have to pay the bill. From 1950 to 1974 nothing has been done. This Government seeks to consolidate the statutes and reduce all those books to eleven. It is a major effort; it is an ambitious effort. It will greatly simplify the task of lawyers in the job they have of finding the law and giving advice on it. Anything that defers or delays this measure is to be regretted.

I have had my attention drawn to an answer given in the Senate by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) to a question on this subject by Senator Brown. He said, in part, that he was given to understand that the first volume of the consolidation would be available not later than 9 September this year and that other volumes would be published at approximately monthly intervals, the last volume being scheduled to be available not later than July next year. This very important but not widely known task of advising on the law is a matter of considerable priority, and the Government has some pleasure and pride in the steps that have been taken by the Attorney-General to bring about improvement. Yet the Opposition takes the view that this is an opportunity not to amend this Bill but to amend the Public Service Act. I can understand the tactics of politicians who want to do this or that, but I suggest with great respect to all the honourable members as- sembled opposite that it is not a proper use of the time of this House to try to move an amendment to the Statute Law Revision Bill which seeks to consolidate into 11 volumes all the books in which the law is to be found at the moment.

The Opposition says: ‘Here we can put in a little point, take up some time, score, and move something about which the Government feels differently, that is, whether Australian public servants should be required, obliged, compelled to take an oath or an affirmation.’ This was debated at some length in this House back in December. I was in charge of the Bill at that time. This House declared its will and its intentions on the subject. It is true that in the Senate there were discussions because at that time the Senate was sitting and this House was not sitting. I understand that the AttorneyGeneral gave some undertaking that an opportunity would be presented for further discussion on it in the Parliament. That is proper. But we all know the things that have happened in that time since 13 December 1973, before the Parliament rose. The Opposition parties pulled on, forced, what some would call a very irresponsible election. It has been described in many places as an expensive and unnecessary waste of public funds. This Government was returned to office.

Mr Sinclair:

– You did not think it was necessary?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Certainly not necessary. Three months have gone by, and the Parliament has been sitting again for only 2 weeks. Here in the House of Representatives the Government has brought in a Bill to facilitate the consolidation of all that law - that unnecessarily extensive law - into 1 1 volumes, and the Opposition says: ‘Because it involves, as it must, amendments, schedules to Acts, renaming Acts, bringing them all together into 11 books, here is our chance to amend in a rather odd way another Act about which the Government feels differently.’ This is probably not the occasion to make this point; it would probably be better made in Committee: One does not know whether to be serious or to laugh at the point of substance chosen by the Opposition. The very notion that in this day and age service depends upon an obligation sworn before the deity, or affirmed, is to my mind ridiculous. I grew up in this country. I believe that I am in the mainstream of Australian thinking. I think of all the examples where service is given and given well. Do we ask lawyers, doctors or nurses, or people in whatever occupation or profession one thinks of, to swear that they will do their best or else be struck down dead? No, we do not. In the British civil service it is not expected. In the State public services in Australia it is not done.

Mr Sinclair:

– In the United States?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Some honourable members on the other side of the House, because of their innate conservatism do not seem to be able to rid themselves of this pattern of thought.

Mr Sinclair:

– Because Britain does it, it is good enough for you.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This is not a crossexamination at the bar table; it is a speech by the Minister.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It is very enjoyable, Mr Speaker. I put this to honourable members opposite in a non-party way: Why do they insist that the public servants who served them well and who serve the Government well - people who are apolitical inasmuch as anybody can be apolitical, people who are dedicated through a sense of professionalism or skill .born of training, education and dedication - take a bible into their hands and swear upon it?

Mr Corbett:

– What is wrong with it?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Why is it necessary? I was told a story of a typist who was required to do it. Why is it necessary to have a typist take an oath? Would honourable members require her to do it if they were employing her themselves? We are trying to introduce a little rationality into this world, and I suggest that rationality goes with a proper appreciation of employer-employee relationships, a sense of mutual understanding of the obligations on both sides based upon reason and an understanding of the job that both sides have to do.

Dr Everingham:

– And the law.

Mr ENDERBY:

– And the law, as my friend the Minister for Health says, because the law is in the Public Service Act. It matters not whether one believes or does not believe. It is not necessary to make it a condition of employment that people go through this little ritual. This is a small matter. I accept that.

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

– You are making an awful fuss about it.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am not making a fuss. These amendments were introduced not by us but by the honourable member’s side. The present law became the law last year and the Opposition seeks to change it. So who is making the fuss? Those are the only points I wish to make. We are glad to have the support of the Opposition for the measure, notwithstanding that the Opposition is exploiting the situation by trying to move this amendment to the Public Service Act as part of a process of amending the Statute Law Revision Act. The other remarks I will leave to the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth (8.34

– I mentioned in the second reading debate that I would draw the attention of honourable members to certain amendments, and I do that now. Some of them are merely formal. They seek to amend the Statute Law Revision Bill 1974 by the inclusion of a new section 7A, which in turn would amend the Public Service Act 1922-1973. I do not move the amendments at this stage, but I intimate the substance of them. After amendments seeking to insert sections 34 (b) and 34 (c), they read:

That a section 34 (d) be inserted to read:

That a section 34 (d) be inserted to read: ‘He has made and subscribed, as prescribed an oath or affirmation in accordance with Schedule 4.’ That a section 50 (5c) be inserted to read: ‘Every member of a Promotions Appeal Committee shall before proceeding to perform the duties or exercise the powers of a member of a Promotions Appeal Committee take an oath or make an affirmation in the form in Schedule 6’. That a section 55(1) (g) be inserted to read: ‘Having made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in the form of Schedule 4, does or says anything in violation of that oath or affirmation; or’ That a section 55 (7) be inserted: ‘Every member of an Appeal Board shall, before proceeding to perform the duties or exercise the powers of a member of an Appeal Board, take an oath or make an affirmation in the form in Schedule 5.’

That a section 82 (9) be inserted to read: ‘A person shall not be engaged for employment in a temporary capacity under this Act unless he makes and subscribes an oath or affirmation in the form in Schedule 4’. That a section 82 (9A) be inserted to read: ‘Where it is proposed to engage for employment under this section a person who is not a British subject, or a person who is a British subject but is also a national of another country, the Minister may, after a report from the Board and if it appears to him that the employment of that person would not be prejudical to the national security, the preservation of official secrecy of any other interest of the Commonwealth, determine that the last preceding sub-section is not to apply in relation to the engagement of that person’.

That a section 82(10) be inserted to read: ‘A person who is employed in a temporary capacity at the date of the commencement of this sub-section, or who is transferred to such employment by virtue of any provision of this, Act, shall not be continued in that employment unless, when required by the Board so to do-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! I point out to the honourable gentleman that he is not moving these amendments and they are not relevant to the Bill before the Committee.

Mr Sinclair:

– Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I submit that the amendments are relevant to the Bill before the Committee because they are the substance of an amendment which was pertinent to the second reading debate which has just taken place and have been the subject of debate in the other chamber. The amendments are being outlined to the Committee so that honourable members will be aware of the reasons for and the substance of the objection which we have to the Bill being passed in its present form. I submit that they are relevant to the Committee stage of this Bill and fall within the framework of this discussion and that it is in order for the honourable member for Wentworth to indicate the form of the amendments that he would have moved if it had not been for the assurance given by the Attorney-General in another place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Let me make this point: What may or may not be moved and what may be in an amendment which may be moved is not the matter before the Committee. What is before the Committee is the Bill and the clauses of the Bill. I do not have the amendments and therefore I am not able to deal with them. Even if I did have them, there would be no way in which I could study them at this short notice. But the remarks that are being made are not relevant to the Bill. The Bill is the Statute Law Revision Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– These amendments have been adverted to. A copy of them has been handed to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) and he addressed the House during the second reading debate in relation to them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I was not in charge of the second reading debate which is a general debate, but I am in charge of the Committee debate which is a restricted debate.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– I realise that, but we have gone into Committee in the light of that debate in which the Minister chose to debate the subject and in doing so seems to have conceded that they have some relevance to the title of the Bill under consideration. But so be it. I do not propose to move the amendments to which I have referred because I understand that they may find favour in the other place. I am seeking to make it quite clear that our acceptance of the Bill in this chamber is not unqualified and is subject to our support for those amendments when they find favour in the other place. They will find favour there because we take the view, and rightly so, that the Attorney-General gave an undertaking to that other place that this year he would bring back a Bill that would enable the question of oaths for public servants to be determined. Those oaths were taken out of the Public Service Act by stealth-

Mr Enderby:

– They were fully debated here.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– They were taken out in the Senate at the eleventh hour - at one minute to midnight in effect - in a debate last year on an undertaking by the AttorneyGeneral in that place. It is for him to indicate how he will honour that undertaking. That is the reason why I am intimating these amendments to the House. Senator Withers asked the Attorney-General: Do you give an undertaking that you will bring the Bill back so that we can move the amendment next year? Senator Murphy replied: 1 will give that undertaking. That is quite clear. The question of oaths for public servants is a very significant matter. The Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) does not want public servants to take oaths or affirmations. I can understand that. He says that they are not necessary. But there are many things that we can say are not necessary. We can say that clothes are not necessary, in one sense, but society accepts them. Oaths are of a different order. In the case I am dealing with they bind people to the Crown. I can understand those on the other side of the House wanting to detract from the position of the Crown in Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honourable member is getting a bit away from the Bill we are debating.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– I do not think so, Mr Chairman -

Mr King:

– He knows what he is talking about.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Irrespective of whether the honourable gentleman knows what he is talking about, we are in fact debating the Statute Law Revision Bill which, on my understanding, is to revise the statutes and consolidate them, not to amend them. We are in fact talking about a substantial amendment to the Public Service Act which is not before the Committee.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– I am perhaps answering something that the Minister said when he asked: ‘Why should a typist -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That can be done on the third reading of the Bill, if it is considered relevant. But the Committee stage is for dealing with the details of the Bill

Mr ELLICOTT:

– On the question whether these amendments fall within the Statute Law Revision Act -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That is a question which, after the amendments have been moved in the Senate, will be determined by either the Chairman of Committees or the President of the Senate. The amendments will not be determined here if they are not moved here.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– I do not intend to move them here. My only purpose is to indicate - I thought quite openly - that these amendments were, to be dealt with in the other place, so that we on this side of the House could indicate our support of the amendments when they are moved in the Senate.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I shall not delay the Committee for long. The Opposition supports the general form of the Bill here and at this stage does not intend to move the amendments which my colleague has intimated we had considered moving in this place. The Statute Law Revision Bill-

Mr Enderby:

– Are you speaking to a point of order?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am speaking to the Committee. There is no point of order.

Mr Enderby:

– There was a point of order. I intended to speak to the point of order. Get the honourable member to speak to the point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There was no point of order before the Chair that I know of.

Mr Enderby:

– There was, and my friend addressed his remarks to it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No, I intervened in the debate. There is no point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I wish to speak in the general Committee stage of the Statute Law Revision Bill. As my colleague has said, we support the Bill. It provides for a process which we in fact initiated. For all that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) alleges that we have been neglectful in this field, it was our initiative which began the whole process of reviewing the law. 1 see this process as eminently necessary and of course it must embrace every piece of legislation which is on the Commonwealth Statute Book. Included amongst those is one to which this particular debate has adverted more than to any other; that is the Public Service Act, within which the requirement for public servants to take an oath before serving within the Public Service has been deleted. From our side of politics we are concerned that this oath should be deleted from the provisions of the Public Service Act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I will not allow a continuing debate on this question. I allowed the honourable member for Wentworth, who was leading for the Opposition, to explain something and I think I gave him a fair go. But I will not allow a debate on the Committee stage of the Statute Law Revision Bin on the basis of something that should be in an Act but which is not there. It is not in this Act and it is not covered by this Act in any way.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Statute Law Revision Bill covers all the pieces of legislation of the Commonwealth and I am talking about the legislation that is covered within the Statute Law Revision Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– With due respect to the honourable gentleman, discussing the Committee stage of the Statute Law Revision Act does not provide the opportunity to debate any section of any law within the Commonwealth. The Bill provides for consolidation of that law into Statutes and a revision of that law as it exists. Amendments to other pieces of legislation would have to be moved to those pieces of legislation.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Chairman, I accept your comments, as I must, but I point out that the Statute Law Revision Bill is designed to update every piece of legislation. I am concerned that in the process of updating legislation there may be omissions and modifications to legislation which we in the Opposition regard as being distinctly against the main stream of the requirements of the Australian people, may be against the purposes which this legislation is designed to accomplish. The legislation is designed to bring all those pieces of legislation into a common current form of language. It is designed to ensure that within the process of the Commonwealth legislation there should be an understanding which embraces that which most people would require legislation to embrace. The Public Service Act as well as the Defence (Reestablishment) Act and the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act - all of which are pieces of legislation on the Commonwealth statute book - are pieces of legislation which the Statute Law Revision Bill in fact relates to. It is necessary when we are considering a specific part of the Committee stage of this debate that we. take cognisance, for example, of the requirements of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act and the general form of the Australian Constitution which allows one to consider the whole embrace of the legislation. I point out that within the Australian Constitution the oath about which we are concerned at the moment within the Statute Law Revision Bill is set down in form, be it by way of oath ‘or affirmation and it is important-

Mr Enderby:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. Is it in order for my friend to talk about something which may be an amendment somewhere but which as an amendment he does not intend to move here tonight?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that in the debate at this stage he has not since my last ruling, referred back to that amendment. Most of the remarks have been about the the operation of this Bill, but any debate on amendments to legislation which is subject to this Bill would be out of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– My concern is that the Statute Law Revision Bill is one of those pieces of legislation with which this Parliament deals within the terms of the Constitution. My remarks are intended to relate back what we can do in the amendment of specific legislation within the powers that the Commonwealth exercises, within modifications that this Bill embraces. In the Committee stage I believe that it is necessary that we have a look at the detail of how we should modify existing pieces of legislation. Within the Constitution is-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that at the Committee stage he is able to deal only with matters which are in the Bill, not matters that should be in the Bill, may be within the Bill, or matters which are within the power of this Parliament to legislate on.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I agree with that. But 1 would agree also that the Currency Act, the Defence (Re-Establishment) Act and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act are all pieces of legislation within the Bill and I think there is a necessity for us to see the degree to which these Bills as well as the Statute Law Reform Act fit within the Commonwealth Constitution. I submit that there is an oath or affirmation of allegiance-

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I will not allow the honourable gentleman to go on to that. This Bill is the Statute Law Revision Bill. It does not allow for the amendment of any Act which is revised other than in terms of updating the language. Any amendment to an Act has to be made by an amending Act of this Parliament and cannot be obtained by the passage of this Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I submit to you, Mr Chairman, that it is always appropriate to talk about the Australian Constitution in the Committee stage of any Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Only when it is relevant to the Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I would agree.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are not on the second reading debate.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am talking about clauses of this Bill and within the clauses of the Bill you will see that there is a schedule which embraces a wide series of amendments to specific pieces of legislation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Public Service Act has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I have not referred to the Public Service Act. I am talking about the Commonwealth Constitution which refers to an oath or an affirmation. In the schedule to the Constitution 2 headings are set out - ‘Oath’ and ‘Affirmation’. I believe it is important that we should consider the degree to which loyalty to the Australian Commonwealth, loyalty to the Australian people and loyalty to the Crown should be covered by the legislation which is currently being amended.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! No legislation is being amended by this Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is what the legislation is all about.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It revises the law and updates language. Any amendments to legislation must be approved by this Parliament.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Precisely. But certain amendments are to be deemed effective. Clause 6 of the Bill states:

The repeal of section 3 of the Australian National University Act 1946-1971, as amended by the Australian National University Act 1973, effected by the Principal Act shall be deemed not to have taken effect.

In other words, there are amendments within this legislation to specific pieces of legislation under the Commonwealth Constitution. The Constitution does provide for an oath or affirmation. The whole nature of changes to legislation within this Bill must be in accordance with loyalty to the Crown and to the Commonwealth and any changes which do not embrace-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is out of order. There is no provision in this Bill to amend the Commonwealth Constitution and I would suggest that it is completely out of order to be debating the Commonwealth Constitution in the Committee stage of this Bill. I would suggest that, as we are in the Committee stage, the honourable gentleman debate the clauses of this Bill.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Mr Chairman, it is important that there be an updating of Commonwealth laws and that such updating should accord with the practices and requirements of the Australian people. To the degree to which there is any deletion of those things which are important to the Australian people, this is not a piece of legislation which the Opposition supports. We support it because in substance it does include necessary amendments. However, the amendment to which my colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), referred does not in our opinion fit within those requirements or specifications. We trust that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) will introduce the legislation in another place, which he has given a firm undertaking to introduce. In that case any amendments to this Bill might be moved in that place.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– We have surely seen one of the most flagrant abuses of the procedures of this Parliament - certainly in the time that I have been here. One can be tolerant in an understanding way of my good friend, the honourable member for Went- worth (Mr Ellicott) because this was his second or his third speech in this House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister will not refer to the second reading debate. He will refer to the clauses of the Bill.

Mr ENDERBY:

– But the remarks of the honourable member for Wentworth who is new to this chamber - I say this with great respect to him - make it obvious that he has been set up by his colleagues.

Mr Corbett:

– We do not do that on this side.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Do you not! We saw the best example of it during the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair), who is not a member of the same party as my friend, the honourable member for Wentworth. The Deputy Leader of the Country Party spoke of amendments that members of the Opposition are not going to move. What could be a more flagrant breach of the Standing Orders than that? There is not to be found anywhere in the schedules of this Bill we are supposed to be debating a reference to the Public Service Act at which these amendments - the amendments that are not to be moved - are supposed to be directed. The amendments that are not to be moved are not to be found in the Bill about which we are talking. How often can one say that to illustrate the waste of time which the Deputy Leader of the Country Party has put our new friend and colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth, up to?

Mr Ellicott:

– I will look after myself.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am sure that the honourable member will, in time. The amendment sheet circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth is headed ‘Amendment to Statute Law Revision Bill’. It does not appreciate and makes no reference to the fact that the Bill before this House is retrospective to 31 December 1973 because the law that the Deputy Leader of the Country Party talks about was made then and a lot of people have come into the Public Service since that time. If this proposed amendment which has not been moved-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would suggest that the Minister does not transgress the ground which I have asked other honourable members not to transgress.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am staying on the amendments that are not to be moved, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am not allowing those to be debated, otherwise we will have a general debate on something that is not before the Committee.

Mr ENDERBY:

– The amendments would render invalid the appointment of every public servant who had not taken an oath or an affirmation and who joined the Public Service after 31 December 1973.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have asked the Minister to return to the Bill.

Mr Ellicott:

– Who is wasting time now?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am trying to bring the debate to an end.

Mr Ellicott:

– You can do that by sitting down now.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will do that in a moment. Where is the Deputy Leader of the Country Party?

Mr Sinclair:

– I am right here.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Have we ever seen a greater waste of the time of this Committee?

Mr Calder:

– What are you doing?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am talking about amendments that are not to be moved, which are. clearly out of order, and which have taken up the time of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the Minister does not make another reference to those amendments.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Through you, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Committee how it came about that these amendments that are not to be moved and which have been associated with innuendo and attack-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! May I point out to the Minister that he will be moving the third reading of the Bill in a few moments? If he wants to make this type of remark, he can make it on that occasion. He cannot make it during the Committee stage of the Bill. If I allow the Minister to go on, I will have to allow others to go on and I do not intend to permit that.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I accept your suggestion, Mr Chairman. But may I put 2 points, because the debate in the Committee stage is concerned with these non-existent amendments? I appreciate that it is a fictitious situation

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no point in the Minister - -

Mr ENDERBY:

– During the Committee stage of this Bill, one must grapple with this phantom. Let us look at the phantom which would disqualify many public servants who are already in the Service. It is not in the proper statutory form.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would ask the Minister at this stage to desist from debating on that line. If he does not desist I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It does not even deal with the citation of the Public Service Act.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Enderby) - by leave. - proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

- Mr Speaker, it is not often that a new member of this House is told that he has been set up. When I speak in this place, I will not be set up. I will be set up by nobody.

Mr Enderby:

– I am on your side.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– You may think that you are on my side, but you are not. You are on the other side and I will not be set up by anybody.

Mr Enderby:

– Look to your left.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– What I said in the second reading debate, I meant. I found the remarks of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) offensive - I mean that - because I thought that, from his association with me, he would realise that I would not be set up by anybody. I do not need to say any more. I simply repeat what I said in the second reading debate. If I had had the opportunity to say more about the Government’s attitude to the oath of allegiance, I would have. When the opportunity is presented, I will.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is being fairly belligerent.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– I did not hear the interjection of the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I regard that as fairly belligerent and extremely obtuse.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– I realise that. I would regard the approach that you take to the Crown as obtuse too, but I know what you are aiming it at.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– in reply - It is an occasion for some remarks in reply to my good friend, because we have been friends for many years-

Mr Ellicott:

– And we will remain so.

Mr ENDERBY:

– And we will remain friends. I meant no offence to him-

Mr Sinclair:

– You meant offence to me then, did you?

Mr ENDERBY:

– You will draw your own conclusion from my remarks.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Chair is not aware of what happened in the Committee consideration of this Bill. I do not know what anybody is talking about.

Mr ENDERBY:

– The point that I was endeavouring to make, and which bears slight repetition perhaps at this stage, is this: Some of my friend’s colleagues were seeking to take advantage of him. That is no slight on him at all. In fact, it is a slight on them - and very much so - because he comes new to this House. As I put to him in one of my asides which, I am sure, he heard, he will look after himself well, and does look after himself well. But some of his colleagues have taken an unfair advantage of him at this stage-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the Minister that we are debating the third reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill and are not considering what- was said during the Committee stage of the consideration of this Bill. We are debating the third reading of the Bill. I ask the Minister to keep to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will. The points are simple: The Government brings in a Bill to consolidate and to reduce the mass of statute law to about 11 volumes. This is a major achievement. As I pointed out, the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) has said in the other place that the first volume should appear not later than 9 September 1974 and after that subsequent volumes will appear at regular intervals. This measure which we are debating here this evening is designed to facilitate that action, difficult as it is. It was far too difficult for the Opposition ever to have done in the 23 years that it was in government; yet, we have managed to achieve it in 18 months or so. T say to Opposition members who are trying to interject that that achievement is something to be proud of. We are pleased about this achievement as we are pleased with so many other actions by this Government.

The Bill is a small one. The enacting part of the legislation consists of 2 pages. The remainder of the Bill is made up of 3 schedules. No reference is to be found in any part of the Bill to the Public Service Act. Yet, in the course of this debate, someone on the Opposition side dreams up the clever thought - clever but not profound - that here is an opportunity to amend another Act that has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. The reference was to an Act concerning which enacting legislation, after debate in this Parliament, was passed in December of last year. After further waffle, waffle and waffle about proposed amendments, it then becomes clear that amendment that the Opposition is talking about and which has been circulated under the heading ‘Amendment to Statute Law Revision Bill 1974’ - that is what we in the Government were given - is not an amendment at all. The Opposition is joking. It did not really intend to move that amendment. The Opposition says: ‘We do not mean it’-

Mr Sinclair:

– On the contrary; that is why we were talking about it

Mr ENDERBY:

– The Opposition says: ‘We did not mean it’. No amendment is sought to be made at all.

Mr Sinclair:

– There has been considerable discussion about our amendment, as you well know.

Mr ENDERBY:

– No amendment has been sought to be made.

Mr Sinclair:

– One would have been.

Mr ENDERBY:

– What greater or more gross example of a waste of time-

Mr Nixon:

– Well, sit down.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I look right at you people. You have taken this time up, doing this.

Mr Calder:

– What are you doing now?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am trying to tell this House and the people who read the Hansard report-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is supposed to be debating the third reading of the Bill as reported from the Committee.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I believe that I am entitled also to take advantage of the rules of debate to make known to the people the scandalous, irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition whose members come in here, protest about not having time available to them to debate measures and who then waste a lot of time talking about actions that they are not going to take.

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

– I rise to take a point of order. In taking my point of order, I ask: Is it correct for the Minister to speak in this manner, not touching on the Bill in the proper context, because of his hatred of the oath of allegiance and to continue to do so-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not want a speech in support of a point of order. I think that the House would be aware that I allowed the honourable member for Wentworth quite a bit of latitude in his contribution on the third reading. I ask the Minister whether he has finished his speech?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Yes, I have made-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Minister to relate his remarks to what the Committee reported to the House.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Inherent in the report of the Committee to the House presumably was the comment that the Committee debate was a debate about nothing - a debate raised by the Opposition about nothing.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 325

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented. On an Australian Broadcasting Commission program tonight - I understand that it was the ‘ABC News’ - the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) who is not in the House although I advised him earlier that I would be making this personal explanation, stated:

I have evidence that 3 senior members of the Australian Wool Commission have met with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party and these members of the Commission have said that they will keep prices up this week in order to embarrass the Government.

That, Mr Speaker, is totally untrue. The only members of the Australian Wool Commission whom I have seen within the last 2 months are the Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission - I saw him approximately 6 weeks ago - and one of the members of the Australian Wool Commission to whom I briefly said ‘Good afternoon’ at an afternoon tea following the opening of the United Farmers and Woolgrowers Conference in Sydney on Monday of this week. On neither occasion did I in any way converse with them relating to prices or to purchases by the Australian Wool Commission. Indeed, Mr Speaker, I know nothing of the suggestion that I have in any way been associated with these members of the Wool Commission in the way alleged. I take strong exception to the public allegation by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I believe that it is completely untrue and I would explain-

Mr Uren:

– I take a point of order. My point of order is that the honourable member has made his explanation. He has no right to make a speech. We accord to him his right to make a personal explanation. The honourable member has no right to debate the matter. The matter is now being debated and a point of view is being expressed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved because I think the honourable member is still making his personal explanation. However, I ask him not to debate the issue when he finishes his personal explanation.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, thank you. I have in no way been associated with any member of the Australian Wool Corporation in the manner the honourable member for Eden-Monaro alleged. At no stage have I discussed with members of the Australian Wool Corporation the basis on which they should purchase wool, the price at which they should buy wool or certainly the way by which they should embarrass the Government. The whole of the statement by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro is totally untrue.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes, I do. I happened to be watching television tonight and I saw the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) being interviewed. In that interview he claimed: 1 have evidence that three senior members of the Australian Wool Commission have met with the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Country Party and these members of the Commission have said that they will keep prices up this week in order to embarrass the Government.

I want to deny categorically that I have had any association whatsoever with the Australian Wool Corporation or members of the Corporation. This is a completely dishonest statement so far as I am concerned. I have had no association with them at all. I resent the statement made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I think it contemptible for a person to make these wild allegations. Furthermore, in the course of his statement he went on to say that the previous Government had not supported the Commission. This is totally untrue.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHAN:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. I am relieved to hear that the conversation did not take place between-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to explain where he has been misrepresented and not to debate what happened on television. He should state where he has been misrepresented.

Mr WHAN:

– Certainly, Mr Speaker. It is suggested that my allegations were untrue. The basis for my statement is to be found in the fact that we have - myself and others - a written statement from one individual and a verbal description by another of a conversation which occurred between three members of the Wool Corporation and a leading farmer.

Mr Sinclair:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the honourable gentleman to substantiate the claim that he has a written allegation in the form to which he has referred.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro.

Mr WHAN:

– This conversation took place in the Australia Club in Sydney in which the members of the Corporation claimed that they had had discussions with the Leader of the

Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair), the purpose of which was to establish a floor price which was beyond commercial justification purely in order to embarrass the Government. I am pleased to hear that that conversation between these people and the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party did not take place. But it does not in any way detract from the fact that the conversation referred to in the Australian Club did take place.

Mr ANTHONY (Richmond- Leader of the Australian Country Party) - Mr Speaker, the allegations were made outside this House-

Mr Whan:

– They were made here last night.

Mr ANTHONY:

– They were made outside this House on television tonight. They are serious allegations. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) claims that he has written evidence of a conversation in which I or my Deputy Leader took part. I do not know whether it is alleged that I or the Deputy Leader of the Country Party took part in the conversation, but I have not been in the Australian Club in the last 12 months, so I do not know how it could be myself. But I believe the honourable member should table this document and should apologise to this House, if not he may be in very serious legal trouble.

Mr SINCLAIR (New England)- I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented. By inference the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) has suggested in some document that I in some way have either been in the Australian Club involved in a conversation or in another way associated in a manner that follows through with the discussion that he had on television tonight. That is totally untrue. I know nothing of the document or the letter. I have not been in the Australian Club for approximately 2 months and any inference that in any way I have been there or involved in the discussions to which he has referred is totally untrue.

Mr WHAN (Eden-Monaro)- Mr Speaker, 1 seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHAN:

– Yes, I do. A reading of the Hansard record of my previous personal explanation will reveal that I have accepted the statements made by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! In a personal explanation an honourable member may explain where he has been misrepresented. I ask the honourable member to keep to the point.

Mr WHAN:

– The misrepresentation revolves around the fact that I have in no way and at no time said that either of these 2 gentlemen were involved in the conversation in the Australian Club. The conversation in the Australian Club took place between 3 members of the Wool Corporation, and they, the 3 members of the Wool Corporation, claimed that they had another external conversation with the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Country Party. Now this is a situation of which we have evidence. I accept the situation that exists tonight. Quite clearly - this was not accepted in the subsequent explanations of the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Country Party - I accept their position and I am grateful to hear what they had to say.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I should like to remind the House that the Chair has no jurisdiction over what takes place outside this chamber. I am quite unaware of what was said and I am not interested in what was said. When an honourable member makes a personal explanation I am interested only to see that he indicates only where he has been misrepresented.

Mr ANTHONY (Richmond- Leader of the Australian Country Party) - The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) is misinterpreting the point of order that we are taking and that is that he publicly on television tonight said:

I have evidence that three senior members of the Australian Wool Commission have met with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Country Party and that these members of the Commission have said that they will keep prices up this week in order to embarrass the Government.

That is a public statement. These three men who are supposed to have had a conversation in the Australian Club have never said these things publicly. But the honourable member for Eden-Monaro has made that statement publicly. What we are saying is that we expect an apology from him in this House. He is just making an allegation on hearsay evidence and if he has evidence he should produce it in this House; otherwise he is committing a breach of privilege by stating outside this House a remark that is a libellous remark as far as the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is concerned and as far as I am concerned.

page 327

CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY (GOOGONG DAM) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 July (vide page 1 67), on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a dam costing approximately $26.5m to augment the Canberra water supply. According to population projections there will then be sufficient water to supply Canberra until somewhere in the region of 1982 to 1985. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) this dam is not likely to fill before 1977. As the existing water storages are only expected to be sufficient until 1975-76 Canberra could face a shortage of water during the years 1 976-77, especially if rainfall is below average in that period. It is thus apparent that even this large new dam will provide the water requirements of Canberra for only a relatively short period. I submit, therefore, that there is an obvious need for work to start on future requirements well ahead of the time when the Canberra population reaches the limit which will be provided for by the dam; that is, about 450,000 people in or around 1982. The Opposition expects an assurance from the Minister for Urban and Regional Development - I hope he is paying attention to this - that forward planning for the next stage of Canberra’s water supply is well in hand. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. However, there are several unsatisfactory aspects of the legislation.

Mr Uren:

– The Opposition will just frustrate it for a long time.

Mr STREET:

– No, we will not.

Mr Uren:

– It was because of your procrastination that it has taken so long.

Mr STREET:

– It was under our Government that the initial planning of this dam took place. I am about to point out now several unsatisfactory aspects of the legislation, unsatisfactory to us and unsatisfactory to the Parliament, even though we do not oppose the Bill. The principal cause for concern relates to the environmental impact statement referred to in the second reading speech of the Minister. Where is this environmental impact statement? If ever a statement of this type were required this project requires one. From the Minister’s second reading speech obviously serious issues are raised by the comprehensive statement which we are told has been prepared for the use of the Government but, apparently, it is not to be available to this Parliament. I refer specifically to 2 problems, firstly, the pollution problem caused by the. mine waste at the old Captains Flat mine and, secondly, the sewage effluent from Queanbeyan. But it is also clear that other issues require clarification and debate. In his second reading speech in the environmental context the Minister states: . . . a number of areas . . . will require careful attention . . .

I submit it is an absolute disgrace that Parliament does not have this environmental impact statement before it. How can honourable members properly debate this Bill? I am speaking not only for honourable members on our side of the House but also for the Parliament as a whole. I remind the House that the original concept of these statments was brought forward during our period in government.

Mr Uren:

– When did your Government ever table one of these statements in the Parliament?

Mr STREET:

– We did not have time. The point is that now the Government has a golden opportunity to table a statement. As far as I can see it has not done so. If ever one were required, it is required now. How can we in the Parliament as a whole properly debate this Bill without a statement? So much for the high sounding promises of open government and commitments to keep the community fully informed on government policies which affect it. The absence of an environmental impact statement with this legislation has exposed the Government as a humbug. I am surprised that the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) allowed this Bill to be presented without the statement. I am pleased to see him in the House for this debate. But above all I am surprised that the Minister for Urban and

Regional Development presented this legislation without a statement. The Minister has frequently claimed to be concerned with our environment and its conservation. To his credit, I personally believe that he does have a feeling and a genuine concern for these issues. But here is this great champion of the conservation cause presenting legislation with admittedly widespread environmental consequences knowing that in fact an environmental impact statement is in existence. Presumably he has had the advantage of seeing the statement. He comes into this House asking us to debate the Bill without tabling the statement.

Mr Uren:

– Well, 300 people have seen it.

Mr STREET:

– I gather from the interjection of the Minister that it has approximately 300 pages?

Mr Uren:

– No, 300 other people. My colleague the Minister will make a copy available to the honourable member tonight.

Mr STREET:

– I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought it was 300 pages.

Mr Uren:

– It has already been distributed to 300 people.

Mr STREET:

– It was not distributed to me. It was not distributed to anybody I know.

Mr Uren:

– The honourable member should get a copy from his advisers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! I think there have been sufficient interjections on this matter. I call the honourable member for Corangamite.

Mr STREET:

– I am staggered at the Minister’s interjection. Apparently this impact statement is floating around. It has not been brought to the attention of the Opposition yet here we are debating this most important piece of legislation. I said a moment ago that the Minister has a reputation of concern in this issue. I would have expected something better from him. But let us examine some of the problems referred to in the second reading speech. The first problem is the mine waste pollution from Captains Flat. This is a long standing problem as I am sure the Minister will agree. It is obvious that if the flow of the Molonglo River is restricted, in time there could be a buildup of pollution in Lake Burley Griffin as the Captains Flat site of the mine is downstream from the dam. That might not be so serious as long as water can be released from the dam from time to time to flush out the river and the lake. But we know from the second reading speech that if the population projections are correct, this will be possible for only a few years. At current requirements there will be an excess of water in the dam for only a fairly short time. I agree with the Minister that this problem must be resolved at its source. It is also possible - I did not see any reference to this in the second reading speech of the Minister - that there could be some form of subterranean flow of contamination originating from this same source. For example, the history of the widely fluctuating levels in Lake George show that this region possesses unusual geological features or structures. 1 ask the Minister to clarify later when he has the opportunity whether any drilling has been done to determine whether there is any contaminated subterranean flow. I submit that this is a good illustration of how hopeless it is to try to debate this Bill without adequate information. On behalf of the Opposition 1 say that we are pleased to note that remedial works will be undertaken to improve the quality of the Molonglo River water, also that a soil conservation program is to be put in hand to reduce erosion in the catchment area and that local features of geological and historical interest are to be protected. There are other points on which the Opposition will require further details. If the Minister can resolve our questions in his speech winding up the second reading debate, we hope to avoid the necessity for going into Committee. But if we are not satisfied with the detail provided by the Minister we will seek further clarification at the Committee stage. A question which arises is this: Who eventually pays for the cost of the headwater works? I understand that in the past repayments of capital costs of this nature have been built, into the rates paid by Australian Capital Territory residents. Will this practice be followed in the case of the Googong Dam? If it is, can the Minister give any estimate of the impact on Australian Capital Territory ratepayers? We have a new feature in this piece of legislation. At least part of the water provided from the Googong Dam will be for the use of Queanbeyan residents. I ask the Minister: What will be the position of Queanbeyan residents? Since they will be getting, one hopes in due course, som; benefit from the new dam-

Mr Uren:

– They need it. They did not get much in the last 23 years.

Mr STREET:

– I am not contesting that they need it. I am asking whether they will be asked to contribute in some measure to the cost of the headwater works.

The next point I wish to make relates to the provision for payment by way of compensation under clause 13 of the Bill. As acquisition of the land will be under the Lands Acquisition Act, a fair price must be paid; but the question arises as to when it will be paid. I regret to say that in the past there have been cases in which the Government has acquired land - admittedly at a fair price - but payment has been delayed for a long time. I believe that interest is now payable at 8 per cent, or thereabouts, on outstanding amounts. I point out to the. House that this is less than the Commonwealth bond rate, but it is certainly an improvement on the previously very low rate, which I think was of the order of 3 per cent. The Opposition would like an undertaking from the Minister that there will be no undue delay in the making of payment once the land is acquired or other compensation becomes payable according to the terms of clause 13.

Finally, I refer to the issue of warrants for entry on to land, as provided for in clause 10 of the Bill. Among other things, clause 10 refers to the situation where an occupier refuses consent for entry or where it is impracticable to obtain the consent of the occupier ‘within a reasonable time’. I am a reasonable man. I concede that on occasions the Minister can be a reasonable man. But the point is that neither the Minister nor I will be administering this legislation. I understand that that will b: done by the National Capital Development Commission.

Mr Uren:

– It comes under part of my administration.

Mr STREET:

– I am delighted to hear that it comes under part of the Minister’s administration and that the authority to issue warrants under clause 10 of the Bill will come under the Minister and, through him, the NCDC. Am I correct in that interpretation, Mr Minister?

Mr Uren:

– I will reply in a moment.

Mr STREET:

– I am now seeking information from the fount of knowledge itself. I am seeking from the Minister an assurance that this clause, in its own language, will be administered reasonably. I cite as an example that the mere temporary absence of an occupier should not of itself be taken as fulfilling the conditions required for the issue of a warrant under the terms of clause 10. If the Minister is able to provide satisfactory answers to those queries in his reply to this debate, it may not be necessary to call for debate in Committee. 1 reiterate the Opposition’s disapproval of the House being asked to debate this legislation without its attention being drawn specifically to the environmental impact statement to which reference has been made. It is essential that it be fully available if the people who are to be affected by this legislation are to have a full understanding of it. I regret to have to say that in my eyes this has tarnished the reputation of the Minister who, I previously believed and still believe, has a genuine concern for the environment and its protection. Having said that, I reiterate that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill itself. I trust, on behalf of the Opposition, that the specific points of detail I have raised will be dealt with by the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate on the Bill in order to ensure a speedy passage for the Bill, because the Opposition agrees that there is an urgent need to call tenders and to get the work under way at the earliest possible moment.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– The proposed Googong Dam will be situated in my electorate. It is a project which is necessary to ensure the supply of water to the rapidly expanding population of the CanberraQueanbeyan region. In his second reading speech on this Bill the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) also referred to many other matters of concern to my electorate. In particular, I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge the difficulties that are being experienced in regard to the Queanbeyan sewerage system. He defined the 2 solutions to that problem as being either the construction of a more advanced water treatment plant at Queanbeyan or the acceptance of Queanbeyan sewage into the Canberra system. The sewerage problem has become an extremely difficult one for the city of Queanbeyan. It is one of many that the city faces because of its very explosive population rate and the fact that its local government facilities are just not capable of coping with the rate of expansion that is initiated from Canberra. The acknowledgment by the Minister of the very real problem being experienced by the people of Queanbeyan will be very much appreciated by them.

It is also significant to note that the Minister referred in his second reading speech to the work of a group, consisting of representatives of the National Capital Development Commission, the Queanbeyan City Council and the Yarrowlumla Shire Council, endeavouring to help to resolve the difficulties that are created by the expansion of Canberra in this region. In this respect the intention to build the Googong Dam means much more to those in the region on the border of the Australian Capital Territory than the fact that the dam will be there to supply water. These things sometimes cause difficulties to individuals. In particular, the problems associated with land resumption for the construction of the dam itself, for the surrounds and for the pipeline have been exercising the minds of many people in the Queanbeyan area. I feel that it would be very useful if those people were to be reassured by my reading clause 1 1 (3) of the Bill, which states:

In the exercise of the rights referred to in subsection (1), the Commission and the Minister shall have regard to the interests of persons who are the owners or occupiers of land through or past which waters from the Googong Dam area flow, and shall not act in a manner that interferes with the exercise and enjoyment by such persons of rights expressed to be conferred on them by or under a law of the State of New South Wales except to such an extent as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of -

collecting and maintaining in a dam or other work constructed under this Act a quantity of water reasonably necessary for the purpose for which the dam or work is maintained

There are other parts of the Bill that provide protection for the people who will be involved. In particular, there is clause 13 (1), which covers the. question of compensation for damage caused during the construction of the dam. I have been in touch with the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) concerning that problem. His Department has assured me that the individuals concerned will be approached as individuals and that on-site inspections will take place, particularly in regard to the pipeline, which is currently causing concern in Queanbeyan. Also contained in the Minister’s second reading speech is acceptance of the responsibility for solving the problem of pollution of the Molonglo River from the Captain’s Flat mining area, which is also in my electorate.

I believe that the sum total of the Googong project will be to enhance the recreational facilities of the region and to remove 2 very serious sores that have existed in past years; that is, pollution of the Molonglo River and the sewerage problems in Queanbeyan. The recreational aspects of the proposed Googong Dam have also exercised the minds of my constituents, particularly those who reside in the immediate vicinity of the site. In particular, queries have been raised as to whether the population at large will be able to fish or sail on the new dam. I am advised by the NCDC that fishing is possible, subject to the New South Wales regulations, and that sailing should be possible. No position has yet been adopted in regard to motor boats. These things, plus the enhancement of the area around the Googong Dam, should provide a new venue for recreation not only for the people of the Queanbeyan area but also for people from Canberra.

I welcome this Bill because it is at once functional and it makes a significant contribution to the quality of life in the Queanbeyan region. I welcome it, too, because it has displayed, on behalf of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and his Department, a sensitivity to the problems that exist in this region - a sensitivity that is the direct acknowledgment of the fact that these problems are caused , by the rapid expansion of the population in Canberra. Having made those few points, I am content to let the matter lie. I congratulate the Minister on initiating this project, and I look forward to its completion in the very near future.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I rise to support the Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Bill, and I am sure that is a fairly predictable stance for me because ‘most of the. early planning for this project was done during the time that I was Minister for the Interior and when I had a responsibility for the National Capital Development Commission. I am well aware of the urgency of the measure because of the existing water supply problem for the city of Canberra and the Queanbeyan region. As the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) said in his second reading speech, the present facilities will supply the Canberra-Queanbeyan water requirements only until the year 1975-76. This does indicate the need to plan well ahead to provide this region with its water requirements. I have no doubt that the NCDC and other government bodies are planning further ahead to cope with the need that will arise by 1982-85 when the Googong Dam water supply will have met the total requirements of the city.

Even with the provision of the Googong Dam, assuming that its construction commences in the immediate future, undoubtedly there will be some need, in the event of a dry summer or two, for some water restrictions before we are able to bring additional water supplies to the city of Canberra. So I can understand why the Minister has sought a fairly swift passage of this Bill; it is to accommodate the needs of the city and the whole of the area. I know how carefully the NCDC and the Minister have negotiated with the New South Wales authorities in regard to this matter and how helpful the Commonwealth Government has been, and would have been even had there not been a change of government, to the Queanbeyan area which undoubtedly will benefit to a considerable extent from the provision of this project.

I, like the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), raise the point that it is regrettable that the environmental impact study has not been tabled and has not been made public. I think it must become a feature of government to table such studies with every project of this nature, whether or not it is being carried out by the NCDC Let us face it; the National Capital Development Commission should not have any prior right to be exempt from the scrutiny of the Department of the Environment and Conservation. I hope that in the future any proposal for a project of this type will be accompanied by an environmental impact study for the benefit of those who are concerned about environmental matters. Of course, a very big environmental factor is attached to the construction of the Googong Dam. This has been mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech. I refer to the Captains Flat area which has been the source of considerable concern for some time because of the degree of pollution that it does occasion to the Canberra lake. The Canberra lake, of course, is becoming a pretty good sump for all sorts of deposits. The city of Queanbeyan seems to have great difficulty in containing its sewage. The Canberra lake is almost becoming a still pool for the city of Queanbeyan and its environs over the border. It certainly would be unfortunate if the authorities, both in New South Wales and in the Australian Capital Territory, could not contain either the underground seepage of water from Captains Flat - there is some suspicion that there is some seepage underground - or the waste that is run off into the system. Undoubtedly by 1982-85, when the degree of flow from the Googong Dam will be lessened there will be less capacity to flush out the Molonglo River. The Captains Flat pollution problem will then intensify the environmental problems of the Canberra lake.

I do not want to delay the House, but I am sure that the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) will quietly agree with me that with every works project of this type there should be tabled an environmental impact study, whether it recommends that the project go on or whether it recommends that it should not. I think that the public generally expects this of governments today because of the increasing despoliation of our environment by greater numbers of people, by industrialisation and all forms of development. I commend the Bill and well understand the degree of urgency that the Government places on it in trying to get it through both Houses of the Parliament. I hope that there will be a degree of continued co-operation between the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government. I hope also that the landholders in the area are compensated at the earliest opportunity for land resumption.

Mr James:

– I hope that you are as concerned about the land pollution being caused by coal mines in my region.

Mr HUNT:

– Well, we might have a talk about that later, and 1 hope that I can give the honourable member some support if his idea is sound and practical. 1 am sure that the honourable member for Hunter would not be putting to me a proposition that is not worth supporting. But we will have a look at the honourable member’s idea to see whether we can help the coal fields in the Hunter area. In fact, we might go up and have a look at them some day. I might even accompany the Minister for the Environment and Conservation to see whether we can protect that delightful area of New South Wales. However, I was about to make the point that it is very important to ensure that the land owners in the area are paid their due compensation at the earliest opportunity. I find that governments are very slow in making settlement for land resumption, and this often causes great hardship for the people concerned. They have to re-settle, re-invest and re-establish themselves in other forms of activity. I ask the Minister to ensure that those people who have had their land resumed are adequately compensated. I know that they will be adequately compensated under the terms of the Lands Acquisition Act, but

I hope that the Minister will ensure that the settlement is expedited. I am sure that the Minister will respond to this point in his reply.

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

– My colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) no doubt will reply to most of the points made by Opposition speakers. Although I have here a great stack of notes from my Department which has had a considerable amount to do with the preparation of this scheme as commissioned by the Department of Urban and Regional Development, I do not think it is appropriate for me to go over much of the ground which is understood by honourable members and which to some extent has been outlined by the Minister. As the Minister has said, the Bill is required to give parliamentary approval to the National Capital Development Commission for the construction of the Googong Dam and the associated works on the Queanbeyan River in New South Wales as the next major water supply for Canberra and Queanbeyan.

I find it a little remarkable that there is some criticism of a government which has been in office for only 20 months for the possible failure of the Canberra water supply. This matter has been talked about for a long time. Probably some decades ago there was speculation as to the inevitable inadequacy of the Canberra water supply, that one day it would be incapable of serving the purpose. I know that in 1967 investigations of an advanced nature were well and truly under way. I know something of the complications which were encountered at that time.

Mr Hunt:

– There were 4 options.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right, there were 4 options. There were a number of problems because this most conglomerate matter involved all facets of government, with the Federal Government on the one hand and the State Government on the other hand. I readily acknowledge the fact that our predecessor Government had a lot of problems but the point I am making in reply to criticism is that this Government in 20 months has brought the matter together in a very impressive and effective way. The operation involves the delicate matter of State sovereignty, acquiring land from a Slate and so on. I believe that my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development should be given very great credit for bringing this measure to the Parliament so quickly in the lifetime of the present Government. I am able to say that because, as I pointed out initially, my Department was called on to do a number of things. So I have some awareness of these matters.

The Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909-1955 gave the Australian Government paramount rights over the waters of the Queanbeyan and Molonglo Rivers. It underlines the farsightedness of the people who prevailed at that time. Negotiations have taken place between the various Federal and State authorities regarding riparian rights, land acquisition, water supply for Queanbeyan, the control of the catchment area and the control of flood flows. The New South Wales Government has agreed in principle to the construction of the project. My own Department, the Department of Housing and Construction, will construct this project on behalf of the National Capital Development Commission. The Department carried out investigations of several alternative schemes for the Canberra water supply and carried out detailed feasibility studies and design of all components of the Googong project for the Commission. My Department operates the Canberra water supply on behalf of the Department of the Capital Territory.

I think that my colleague has already explained the present position of the water supply. It is often good to have these things on record but I will not take the time of the House to do so. I would like to mention something about the nature of the construction, otherwise it will probably not find its way into Hansard. The Googong project comprises a dam, a pump station, a water treatment works, an access road and trunk mains to Queanbeyan and Canberra. The dam will be an earth and rock fill dam 55 metres - or 180 feet - high, located in a gorge about 8 kilometres upstream from Queanbeyan. It will impound 119 million cubic metres - or 26,000 million gallons - of water, increasing considerably the 91 million cubic metres - or 20,000 million gallons - storage in the 3 existing reservoirs on the Cotter River. The storage will extend some 9 kilometres upstream of the dam and cover an area of 680 hectares. The level of the Googong Dam will allow direct gravity supply to only the lowest areas of Canberra and therefore a pump station is necessary immediately downstream of the dam to lift the water to a treatment plant on elevated ground nearby.

Treatment of water is necessary because of the occurrence of high turbidity during freshes in the river and because the catchment is occupied by a population of about 500 persons following pastoral pursuits. Treatment will include flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, chlorination and fluoridation to ensure a high quality water conforming in all respects to public health standards. The project will provide full development of the Googong site, and when operated in conjunction with the existing Cotter River system is expected to meet the demands of a population of 450,000 persons. This population is expected to exist in the region in the period 1982 to 1985. The project will be constructed in 2 stages. The first will be the dam and the access road, the first stage of the pump station and treatment works and trunk mains to Canberra and Queanbeyan. The estimated cost of this stage is $26. 5m. It is an enormous project.

Mention has been made of the environmental impact report. In the preface to this report there is a statement which has been made before in many other reports and on many other ocacsions. It must have been heard. It is very significant and it should have been registered by all honourable members. It says that this document has been prepared in response to a policy decision of the Australian Government in February 1973 that all major projects should be accompanied by an environmental impact statement. That is the fact of life as far as this Government is concerned. That decision was made back in February 1973. The House knows all about that. This is certainly a major project. It will cost some $26m. In fact it will cost more with the acquisition of land. It will be about $28.5m. Here we have a magnificent report, beautifully documented, in respect of all the matters that have been raised here tonight which were treated in a very cursory and superficial way.

The document is a lot more complex, comprehensive and far more scientific a study than the rugged comments which came from the other side of the House tonight. When honourable members opposite read this report they will find profound potentials about ecological and environmental factors, including the subterranean matters and lots of other things that were mentioned. The document contains 269 pages. It is more than one inch thick. I am told that there are 300 of these documents in circulation. I am sorry that the Opposition spokesman on environmental matters has not even struck anybody who has been able to get hold of one of them. I do not know whether there has been some oversight in the formal presentation of the document here, but everybody who is anybody in this field of endeavour knows that this document has been around for a long time.

Mr Hunt:

– Really?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member could well be the exception to the rule I was talking about. There are usually one or two exceptions and sometimes they are the most unsuspecting.

Mr Lusher:

– Are you tabling it now?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think that my colleague is the appropriate man to table it if it needs to be tabled. Perhaps he will not mind if 1 put a copy on the table so that anyone can have a look at it. He might formally table it. It has been around the place. I am staggered that the Opposition has not caught up with it. Honourable members opposite ought at least to acknowledge that it is publicly understood that from February 1973 this Government has provided these statements. The previous Government did not do that in the 23 years it was in office. But we have these statements now. There is never any defaulting about that kind of thing. So the Opposition has a right to expect these statements from here on. It should know that in terms of the concept of open government Opposition members can ask for governmental documents or public documents of this kind and they will receive them.

The Captains Flat mine waste pollution and the Queanbeyan sewage pollution were dealt with by my colleague in his second reading speech and I will not amplify those matters. The planning and design of the Googong project has been carried out with great care to ensure that the construction of the project will have a minimum impact on the environment. The capacity of the storage has due allowance for the release of water downstream to fulfil riparian requirements and to ensure that Lake Burley Griffin will be maintained at a satisfactory level for recreational enjoyment.

The dam design utilises the rockfill quarry as the dam spillway and dissipating basin, and the areas used to win soil and sand for dam construction will be covered by the storage. All disturbed areas above top water level will be revegetated and landscaped.

The location siting and architectural treatment of both the pumping station and treat ment works are such that, while still being compatible with engineering requirements, they will blend into the natural surroundings of the area and with careful landscaping are expected to be suitably unobtrusive.

Proposals have been prepared by my Department for the development of the area downstream of the dam, which is quite attractive, as a public recreation area. A viewing area will be provided above the dam to allow the public to view construction in progress and for viewing of the project on completion. Provision will be made for the public to visit the area, including the pump station and treatment works while in operation, to observe the water supply works for Canberra and Queanbeyan.

The rest of the technical material or semitechnical material that has been made available to me in a sense can be taken as read. What I am pleased to tell the House is that there has already been a facing up to the fact that the need for this work is urgent. I am very pleased to have observed the co-operative tendencies of employee organisations and some employer organisations which realise that there could easily be hold-ups in this project since it involves Federal territory and State territory. A pipeline is to be constructed across State territory and so on, and that could involve Federal and State awards. Unless we determine the terms upon which all this work is to be done, in respect of such matters as award wages, we could have disputes after work has commenced and the job could be protracted. This kind of problem has already been faced up to, and I acknowledge the co-operation we have received from both sides - employees and employers. Hopefully, the work will go on apace and will be accomplished in time to avoid deleterious effects or deprivations to the people of Canberra and will fulfil the needs of the fast-growing community here. I conclude by congratulating my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regiional Development on bringing this very great project to the launching stage. This is an historic occasion. I believe that he and his Department are deserving of a very great tribute for effecting co-operation and coordination among so many different authorities

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

– in reply - I will be brief. The spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), did seek from me answers to certain criticisms. This project was commenced by the Liberal and Country Party Government, but there was a little procrastination in making certain political decisions and the project could have been under way a little earlier than this. I am not trying to score political points for the present Government. Basically, this project has been a remarkable achievement of the National Capital Development Commission which has worked’ patiently with the New South Wales authorities to bring it about. As has been said, this project not only will protect the population of Canberra in the future but also will protect the people of Queanbeyan. This is important, because this dam is an alternative to the present catchment areas. Unless we have an alternative catchment area to take advantage of seasonal rains we could have real problems here in Canberra. This has been known for some time and the project should have been under way earlier than this.

I also want to comment on the matter of the environmental impact statement. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) and his Department were also directly involved in the planning. In February 1973 Cabinet made a decision on these environmental impact statements. I regret that the statement was not tabled in Parliament, although it was made public and 300 copies were distributed. I apologise to the spokesman on the other side of the House. For the information of honourable members, I will make copies available in the Parliamentary Library. If I table the statement about 300 copies of it will have to be made available immediately; so I will make it available in the Library so that honourable members can look at it. If they have any criticisms of it, those criticisms can be raised in another place. I give the Opposition an undertaking that in respect of any project which comes under my administration an environmental impact statement will be tabled in this Parliament.

Forward planning based on the reports developed for the Googong project will proceed immediately in respect of the next water supply project for the Queanbeyan and Canberra areas. In regard to Captains Flat, a joint governmental committee considered the effect of the polluted mine waters emerging from the mine, at Captains Flat and proposes work to divert the surface water which would other wise pick up pollution from the mine. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) and I have already had discussions with the New South Wales Minister for Mines and the New South Wales Minister for Public Works, and we have given a commitment that if the New South Wales Government does not carry out the required works under the terms of the Seat of Government Act the Australian Government will carry them out. Let me say this without any sarcasm: It took 23 years for the Opposition when in government to do anything about this matter, whereas within our first 18 months in government we made a decision that if the New South Wales Government would not meet its commitments under the Seat of Government Act the Australian Government would undertake the work that was required at Captains Flat.

The cost of the Googong water supply project will be borne by the water supply consumers of Canberra and Queanbeyan. I stress again that the Government has considered sympathetically the situation of Queanbeyan. We treat the problems of Queanbeyan similarly to the problems of the fringe areas of our major capital cities. Canberra has probably one of the fastest growth rates of any city in Australia. Many of the problems are over the border in Queanbeyan and, because it is not Commonwealth territory, are thrown on to the New South Wales Government which in some cases has not the money to meet the commitment that needs to be met in those areas. So the Australian Government has committed itself to trying to do something about those matters. I hope to be making an announcement in the coming Budget session that further commitments will be made to the people of Queanbeyan because of the fringe problems they have due to the population growth of Canberra. Many people do not realise that the rate of growth of Canberra is nearly as fast as that of Sydney, and Canberra is absorbing increased population nearly as fast. Each year Canberra absorbs 6 per cent of the Australian population increase. That is done in an orderly, rational way. It has been carried out under the National Capital Development Commission. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) knows, I used to praise the Government on its achievements with the NCDC. The only thing that used to mystify me was: Why in heaven’s name could such things be done in Canberra and nowhere else? Now we are doing such things not only in Canberra but also in Albury-Wodonga. We will work together with the New South Wales Government in Bathurst-Orange. We will do similar things in Geelong in Victoria and in Monarto in South Australia. If we are given any other opportunities we will meet with any State Government and do such things in other places of Australia. We cannot be criticised in that regard. The method of financing will be worked out to spread the cost over a reasonable length of time.

The estimated cost of the Googong water to consumers, based on 1972 design report, is 50c per thousand gallons of water need. Of course assessments will be made when the dam is finished and in about 1982 the cost will have to be assessed on current prices at that time. The sale of water to Queanbeyan will be arranged by my colleague, the Minister for the Capital Territory. The question of compensation will be dealt with by the Department of Services and Property in the normal way. I hear a cackle from the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). He may cackle as much as he likes, but we have a policy which is not only an isolated policy for Queanbeyan. We have a policy for an Australia-wide position because we are moving, in co-operation with the State Governments, into a very large land acquisition program. The policy of both me and the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), and the Government’s policy, will be that of a gentle hand. We want to see landholders get a fair deal. If they want to sell their properties out quickly we will try to meet commitments as soon as possible. That is our policy. It has been our policy in AlburyWodonga where, together with the Victorian and New South Wales Governments we have acquired a great deal of land this year.

I turn now to the matter of warrants to enter. We would always first seek the owner’s consent before entering upon his land. The power is required only for temporary access. I do not want to speak at much further length but I stress that our attitude will be a rational one. We realise that this project is under the administration of the NCDC. It was commenced under another Administration. It was delayed because of procrastination. We have made a great deal of progress in a very short time. Be that as it may, the dam will be in the interests of this region and I think that the House should support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I wish to make a very brief comment. I note that the environmental impact statement which the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) was good enough to show me earlier has been prepared by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Housing and Construction. It seems to the Opposition that this looks a bit like Caesar sitting in judgment on Caesar. I merely wish to put on record that we have some reservations about such statements being prepared by the authorities directly responsible for carrying out the projects to which they refer. Apart from that, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in answering the various queries which I raised with him arising from his second reading speech.

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

– Just briefly let me say that the Department of Environment and Conservation has laid down guidelines for all Departments for the preparation of environmental impact statements. We do not want to build a monolithic Department of the Environment and Conservation but to encourage departments to work with due regard to effects on the environment. If the staff in the separate departments could function in this way we could avoid creating an enormous bureaucracy in the Department of Environment and Conservation. But that Department at any time can seek a public hearing on an environmental impact statement, as was the case with the report on the Molonglo Parkway. A public inquiry was held at the request of the Department of Environment and Conservation, even though the environmental impact statement was prepared by the National Capital Development Commission.

Question resolved inthe affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 336

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 July (vide page 165), on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), in moving the second reading of this Bill indicated that he thought that it was a simple measure and a purely procedural matter. But it is really not as simple as that. The Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1974 seeks to extend for a further 2 years the temporary provisions under which the 1967 operations and arrangements on the waterfront around Australia operate. When the Minister in May of last year sought a one-year extension of the provisions he exhibited a good deal more confidence. He said that he was confident he would be able to bring in permanent arrangements within the next year so that the annual extension of the temporary provisions could be avoided and people would know where they were going in the waterfront. He said that it is not possible, because of continuing technological changes, to introduce the Bill to provide permanent arrangements. Indeed, the first page of his speech this year is almost identical to the first page of his speech last year.

He reminded us of the purposes of the national conference and the proposals introduced in 1967. He said that the scheme is to provide for the permanent employment at weekly hiring of watersiders at major ports, a pension scheme, for regular waterside workers, arrangements for coping with anticipated redundancy, procedures for handling industrial disputes and disciplinary procedures. He is extending the temporary provisions once again. But, at the same time, in his speech last year the Minister said that he had commissioned Mr Norman Foster to give him a report. I understand that the Minister has that report and I would be grateful if he could make available to this House a copy of it. I understand that the Stevedoring Industry Council and the ASIA have also offered their views on permanent arrangements on the waterfront.

The Minister surely has all the information available to him to determine these matters and bring to this Parliament proposals that he and the present Government consider should be introduced for the improvement of matters on the waterfront and to improve efficiency where that can be done. We need to know where the reports are. We need to see that an open government can be an open government. To give the Minister his due, when reports are in his hands he generally makes copies available as soon as practicable. I hope he does so in this case.

I suggest however that one of the reasons for the delay in seeking a 2-year extension of the temporary provisions on this occasion is to bury this vexed, and difficult and controversial issue. The Minister plainly wanted to have a trial run at Darwin to make the Authority at Darwin the sole employer of waterfront labour, probably making that labour available as needed by individual stevedores. But if the reports that appeared in the Press are correct and if other reports that one hears have validity, the General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation did not approve of those particular plans and the Minister was persuaded, therefore, to postpone or to forget them: It is unlike the Minister to duck a fight if a fight is necessary to achieve a particular ambition or wish that he might have. I would hope that he would insist on bringing more permanent arrangements before this House and not try to bury the problem or put it in the ‘too hard’ basket.

A report in the ‘Maritime Worker* of 19 July does not give a great deal of confidence in suggesting that the Minister is determined to push ahead with these matters. The General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation is there reported as having said that no new arrangements would be proposed by the Minister until the end of 1975. I hope that the General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation was not speaking for the Minister on that occasion. I hope that the suggestion that the General Secretary came to an agreement with the Prime Minister on this matter, not with the Minister present, to prevent the Minister from proceeding with his plans to reform the waterfront is not correct. I hope that the. Minister’s persistence will be capable of getting the Prime Minister’s support for proposals for reform on the waterfront just as he was ultimately successful in relation to training and retraining proposals.

It is worth asking, Mr Deputy Speaker, why it has been so hard to finalise arrangements for the waterfront. There has been the 3 years experience from 1967 to 1970. Matters have been extended up to this point. It has been suggested that continuous technical changes make finalisation difficult. But I would have thought that if the Australian waterfront is to be efficient, as it can be, and if it is to remain efficient there would always be technical changes and that any permanent arrangements must be capable of encompassing technical changes which are significant and important - a continuing process of change and development. It is true that there is still 20 per cent of waterside workers who are not permanently employed in different ports and it is also true that industrial relations have not been the best. In 1 973 there was a noticeable increase in industrial unrest, although not to the extent of the unrest in earlier years. However, it was infinitely more than the industrial unrest of 1966 -and 1967 when the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour and the Waterside Workers Federation and others were negotiating the arrangements for permanent employment which are now in force. In those 2 years, industrial unrest was much lower than it was in any 2 years out of the last dozen. That in part tells its own story.

There are many who believe that the 1967 arrangements have not worked as they should have worked - that cargo has not been handled as efficiently as it could have been and that the employers of waterfront labour have been more concerned to move ships quickly than to achieve the best possible arrangements on the waterfront and therefore have been amenable to pressures which have increased costs because if they are not amenable to those pressures ships could be held up. That is one matter which needs to be examined. A number of possible solutions have been suggested such as nationalisation of the waterfront, putting all labour under the direct employment of ASIA, to be allocated to operational employers as and when required. Then there is the reported agreement between the General Secretary, Mr Fitzgibbon, and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that there would be a new stevedoring industry commission as the sole employer. Whether or not that is correct I suppose only the General Secretary or the Prime Minister could tell us.

The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour claimed that the 1967 arrangements had been successful and economic and had moved cargo efficiently. Other organisationsprobably ASIA and others - which know a great deal about the waterfront are doubtful as to whether the arrangements have worked as effectively, as efficiently and as economically as might have been expected from the changed arrangements. I would suggest that one of the reasons for this - even though they seek to deny it - is the undoubted overseas shipping influence in the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. That organisation is dominated by overseas shippers. Their concern is to move ships; it is not with the Australian economy and the impact of high wharf costs on the Australian economy. They claim innocence of this. They claim that overseas shippers do not dominate the AEWL. But shipping companies are overseas owned or overseas controlled to a great extent. They either own their own stevedoring companies or control them by determining who gets the job of loading or unloading a ship; so if it is not a matter of ownership, it is a matter of control. Overseas shippers control the AEWL by these means.

Members of the AEWL dominate from the employers’ point of view the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, later to become the Stevedoring Industry Conference. The AEWL says that this organisation was meant to represent all registered employers, but there are a number of employers who are not registered and a number of others which claim that they have no chance to influence the policies of AEWL. There are the National Industry Council of AEWL and the Terminal and Depot Employers Federation, known as TDEF. There are a number of employers of labour which are not members of either organisation. Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and the British Phosphate Commission are two such bodies. The Australian National Line and BHP, the 2 largest of the local shippers, are not represented on AEWL. So, that organisation does not entirely represent the shipping interests and the employer interests that operate in Australian ports. They claim that their committee of management allows anyone to determine who will be on the committee and that ballots are held every 2 years, but there are members who claim that a ballot has never been held.

I would have thought that this situation is one which the Minister for Labor and Immigration would have relished as a challenge to put the situation in Australia’s hands. I would have hoped that the Waterside Workers Federation would also have relished seeing that these matters were controlled by Australian interests. Suggestions have been made in the past - I think the Minister’s troubles in part flow from this - that the AEWL and the Waterside Workers Federation come to their own particular agreements. These are the Minister’s sweetheart arrangements, as he has so often called them in relation to other areas. These organisations have their own interests which are in their province and for which they can legitimately fight, although they might not always be the interests of the public of Australia. The Minister has a job in front of him and if he has constructive proposals to make in relation to these matters he will not find this Opposition frustrating him when he brings forward his proposals.

There are a number of areas where the 1967 agreement has not worked as it was meant to work. There are a large number of weekly hirings at the terminals which I do not think are quite in accordance with what the arrangements of 1967 intended should happen. There are people who are employed under the direct and permanent employment arrangements and there are those in the 36 nonpermanent ports operating under pre- 1967 arrangements. In recent times, the number employed on a weekly hiring basis has increased and the number employed under the permanent 1967 arrangements, I am informed, has decreased. There has been a continuous period of change on the waterfront. From 1958 to 1967 the number of waterside workers fell and the amount of cargo handled rose by 76 per cent. That kind of change has continued but has been speeded up as a result of containerisation.

page 339

ADJOURNMENT

Postal Services in Rural Areas - Shipment of Citrus Fruit to New Zealand - Social Security

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being half past 10 o’clock p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 11 July, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– I wish to raise an issue which is vital to the future of many of my constituents. I believe that it also is a problem that is common to most of Australia’s rural areas. This is the rapid deterioration of postal services and the huge costs that will have to be met by rural subscribers if they wish to retain the use of their telephones. The Government has been able to avoid responsibility for its obvious inability to reconcile postal unions and their disputes by continued reference to the now concluded royal commission into the Post Office. The report of that royal commission is soon to be tabled. I hope that, following that tabling, immediate action will be taken by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) to restore to the Australian public the real value of service from our largest Public Service department.

One hundred years ago mail was delivered throughout my electorate by horse, Cobb and Co., foot and tremendous dedication. The delivery of mail from a metropolitan area to any of the major towns in my electorate and to many smaller towns never took more than 2 days. But today, with all the advantages of modern transport, including air and rail services, it now takes from 5 days to 7 days for mail deliveries to be made to our major towns. The average time for postal deliveries to be made between 2 towns which are some 224 kilometres apart is 6 days, while people in towns separated by a distance of only 30 kilometres often find that a period of up to a week is required for receipt of posted articles. Even our dedicated non-official postmasters are being frustrated in their attempts to provide a satisfactory service as they are unable to open mail bags on a Saturday even though, in many cases, the mail bags concerned are actually in the post office or perhaps are at the local railway station. Union regulations which restrict the sorting and delivering of mail on a Saturday morning are the cause of this situation. What a condemnation it is of a modern government that essential services are being curtailed and cut back in so many areas. The comparison between what is happening now and the initiative of earlier governments which established adequate postal services to all areas of Australia, remote or otherwise, despite enormous difficulties is a dismal one.

This week, I have received letters from 2 constituents, Mr Doug Richardson and Mr Frank Hynam. The story of the experiences of these 2 gentlemen appeared in last Tuesday’s ‘Sun’. These gentlemen must each pay 81,280 if they wish their homes to be connected to the automatic exchange at Patchewollock.

Mr King:

– That is shocking.

Mr FISHER:

– It certainly is shocking, as the honourable member for Wimmera says. It is shocking that, in modern times, people can be placed at such a disadvantage that they may lose this means of communication if they do not pay $1,280.

Mr Lusher:

– How much?

Mr FISHER:

– The amount is $1,280. They must pay this amount despite the fact that they have built and maintained private lines to that exchange for up to 50 years. These extra charges for a public utility are a direct result of the policy of the Labor Government. The reduction of the free maintenance and construction provision from 15 miles, which was the policy of the former Liberal-Country Party Government, to 8 kilometres or 5 miles and a charge of $160 per half kilometre means that many people now cannot afford to retain an essential service that has been available to them for many years. The anomalies and injustices are more apparent to new applicants when neighbours and subscribers on the same exchange, who were fortunate to have signed applications before the new policy was introduced, are connected free of cost.

Mr King:

– That is discrimination.

Mr FISHER:

– It is discrimination, as the honourable member for Wimmera says. These 2 cases are only a sample of similar situations that exist. Many subscribers to a proposed automatic exchange at Roseberry will also be advised this week that charges of 82,400 - in the case of 2 subscribers- $1,920, 51,620 and $1,280 are to be imposed on them for the conversion of their lines. The former LiberalCountry Party Government introduced the 15-mile free scheme to avert the substantial capital costs to individual rural subscribers from the Post Office’s investment program of conversion to automatic exchanges. This scheme applied not only to conversions but also to new subscribers.

The Coombs Report - the Labor Government’s manual for the economic destruction of country people - recommended that this program could not now be justified when 93 per cent of telephone services are automatic. The stark reality of this statement is that the remaining 7 per cent of telephone services are in country regions of Australia where communication costs are high but where these services are imperative just to conduct normal life in the home and in business ventures. Public amenities and services are the basic right of every citizen irrespective of whether those citizens live in urban or rural areas. The resources of this nation whether human or material do not all originate in the city. Country people make an enormous contribution to our economic wealth, a wealth that is being used to advance all Australians.

The Australian Post Office is in a state of disruption and deterioration. The Post Office is not performing the functions of its charter. But whatever decisions are made in relation to its structure following the Vernon report, one aspect is quite clear. This is that its services must be improved to meet the needs of a modern community and its charges should be levied on a basis of equality. I ask the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) who represents the Postmaster-General in this chamber - the Minister is not present in the chamber now - as I have asked the PostmasterGeneral in representations that I have made to him to rethink this Government policy on telephone extensions and connections. If this is not done, the Minister may well find that the Government will need to provide our essential community services free in an endeavour to encourage people to remain in country areas. People whose net incomes have not reached $2,000 per annum in past years cannot pay from $1,000 to $2,500 for a telephone. Surely, Mr Speaker, 1974, when technological developments are outstripping” our ability to harness them, is not the year to see the removal of basic communication services that people need.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– On 20 March 1974, I addressed a question to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). By the way, I did let the Minister know that 1 intended to raise this matter tonight-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He has the flu.

Mr GILES:

– I was about to say that I understand that the Minister is not very well. He will understand the reason for me rising-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What about sitting down?

Mr GILES:

– Your sheer arrogance is a source of complete amazement to me. To think that you would suggest-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is a personal reflection.

Mr GILES:

– To think that any member would deny the rights of a fellow elected member to put a point of view would always be beyond me. But that has always been the attitude of some people in this House. Anyway, my hope is that I can get some glimmer of intelligence from the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) in reply to the allegations that I am about to make. I will not not take the matter any further than that. The Minister may not be informative.

On 20 March of this year, I asked the Minister for Transport a question. In that question I inquired whether the Minister could do anything to stop the quite futile waste of money and effort for everybody by overcoming the situation in which the New Zealand Waterside Workers Union, in its attempt to protect the New Zealand Seamen’s Union in relation to a whole series of measures, was refusing to unload Australian-staffed ships. I drew attention particularly to the effect that this action was having on the citrus industry in my home State of South Australia and in the State of Victoria. At the time, my approach to this matter was quite low key. I am not so prone to adopt that approach now. The Minister misunderstood completely my question and gave me a wrong answer. That was the first debacle.

The Minister apologised to me; I accepted his apology. That night, in the course of the adjournment debate, the Minister read the correct answer which had been fed to him in the meantime. The substance of his answer was that if I spoke to representatives of the industry concerned and suggested that perhaps the Australian National Line could assist in this matter he would be prepared to help. The problem was this: Because of the action primarily of the New Zealand Waterside Workers Union the freight charges on imports by New Zealand of oranges from South Australia and Victoria - these imports are worth S2m per annum - were due to rise by more than 50 per cent. This prime export market was held at risk.

I next approached the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) who was on his way to New Zealand to hold trade discussions. It seemed to me that it was a golden opportunity for the Deputy Prime Minister to take up this matter and perhaps solve the problem for an important small section of the Australian community. This is a situation where producers are trying to earn export income but because of foul-ups in the system they have been frustrated. The Deputy Prime Minister was most polite to me and said he would do what he could but shortly thereafter there was an election followed by a strike by marine and power engineers. The problem is no longer concerned only with New Zealand waterside workers; it is now within the sphere of Australian unions which are attempting to resolve their situation, but this is all affecting an important shipment of citrus fruits to New Zealand. This is a trial shipment to try to meet the specifications of New Zealand importers. The ship on which this consign ment is loaded has been held in port for 2i weeks and its cargo is deteriorating.

The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) is familiar with the historical background to this matter. My present concern is whether the Minister and Government supporters with their vast union backgrounds can do anything to try to protect minority sections of the Australian community. This trial shipment of oranges is now of doubtful quality. If it does not reach New Zealand in one hell of a hurry that trial shipment will be valueless and Australian exporters will lose the opportunity of earning S2m. This may seem small fry to Government supporters but it represents an important sum to the industry concerned. About 3 days ago a telex message was sent by the industry, through Mr Henwood who resides in my electorate, to Senator Wriedt. It read:

We request your urgent support in seeking dispensation by the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers to release the vessel Australian Endeavour presently strike bound in Port Melbourne.

South Australian and Victorian growers have loaded on this ship 25,000 cases of oranges worth SA 154,000 for discharge New Zealand ports and face a complete loss if further delayed.

Oranges were loaded by 27 June and vessel has been idle since.

The fruit is now beyond all recommended storage time and will out turn adversely if delivery is delayed.

This shipment together with one later on the Australian Exporter was to be a trial to satisfy New Zealand importers that satisfactory shipping arrangements are available following unsatisfactory results from the only other ships available.

All other shipping alternatives frustrated by severe union restrictions on Trans Tasman trade but New Zealand can purchase and ship oranges from any other port of the world without these restrictions.

The New Zealand importers currently are threatening, logically enough, to seek fruit from California to meet their requirements. The telex continued:

We have been advised today by New Zealand that if we can not effect prompt delivery by the Australian Endeavour they will have no alternative but to cancel future shipments and obtain their supplies from California.

We are not over reacting when we state that this will mean the loss of this important market worth seasonally $2m to the citrus industry and the chance of revenue of $lm to A.N.L.

Could we please induce your personal intervention to arrange the immediate release of the Australian Endeavour.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. What a sorry state this nation has reached when people whose incomes average from $11,500 to $18,000, according to the Minister himself, are holding up shipments to another country to the detriment of this nation and a lot of growers who exist on a fraction of those incomes. These producers are being sorely hit by this industrial action. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate that I am not tying all the fault to the particular trade union concerned. This has been just a chapter of the misfortunes and tragedies visited on small sections of the Australian public because of the power of people to stand up the rest of the community. Shortages, frustrations and delays have been the order of the day for small business, primary producers and everyone else in the community. I have expressed myself with some feeling. Many honourable members opposite have a trade union background and I suggest that some of them should get off their seats and try lo solve these industry problems. I have completely omitted reference to the failure of the Government to control rising inflation but it is unquestionable that inflation is responsible for some areas of union disputation today. One can hardly blame members of unions for the attitude they adopt. Earlier 1 stressed that when I raised this matter first 1 played it in low key but I have displayed some heat this evening. A prime export market could be lost because of fiddle faddle and because militant asses do not know what they arc doing and do not care who they damage.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I was listening to the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) when he made his opening remarks. I listened to them with some interest because I have a very clear recollection of what happened some months ago. I admit misunderstanding the question to which he referred. As he said, I did correct my answer later during the adjournment debate that night and gave him the facts. As a result of the information I gave to the honourable member for Angas and as a result of action which has subsequently been taken, we are now in a position to export oranges to New Zealand. As the honourable member said in his opening remarks tonight, a load of oranges is on board the ‘Australian Endeavour’. Unfortunately, the ship has been delayed as a result of a stoppage by the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers.

Several factors have to be taken into consideration in relation to this matter. First, for 23 years the Party of which the honourable member for Angas is a member, was in gov ernment. For 23 years that Government could not solve the problem of the Australia-New Zealand trade. In 23 years it could not do a thing about it. That Government could not get into New Zealand any Australian ships carrying Australian cargo. In the short time of 15 months we have been able to unlock the door. We now have an agreement with the New Zealand Government and the only thing stopping us from putting 2 ships into that trade immediately is that we cannot get 2 ships. The New Zealand unions are quite happy to handle the ‘Australian Endeavour’, the ‘Australian Exporter’ and any other Australian ships that might be in a position to carry Australian trade to New Zealand. So, quite frankly, I do not know what the honourable member is bellyaching about.

Mr Giles:

– You should move the oranges.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I think the honourable member is just bitching for the sake of bitching. Let us be quite clear on one point: We have done the job. The Opposition parties did nothing about it for 23 years. The previous Government was an absolute and utter flop. Let honourable members opposite face up to the facts. When the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd started to blackmail you and screw you, we came to assistance of the growers. That is what we will continue to do. We will give the grower the assistance he needs. The shipment of oranges to which the honourable member for Angas has referred would have been in New Zealand by now but for the engineers’ strike. What was the Opposition’s solution to the problem? Some of the Opposition’s bright boys said: ‘Let us bring in the Navy’. What would we achieve by bringing in the Navy? To start with, who will load the ship? Who will unload the ship? Having got somebody to load it and somebody to unload it, what do you do at the other end with what has been loaded or unloaded, as the case may be? It is just so much poppycock that honourable members opposite go on with. How many times in 23 years did the Opposition when in office bring the Navy in when there was a stoppage? The answer is the same number of times as we will bring it in. Honourable members opposite should face up to the facts. That is what they should do instead of coming in here trying to play politics. That is what they are trying to do in relation to this question tonight. The facts are that we will do all that we can to assist growers as we have done in the past.

The shipment is on the ‘Australian Endeavour’. I know the problem of the goods remaining too long in refrigeration. The shipment will be spoilt. I know that, and the growers have my sympathy. If there were any way 1 could get it to its destination quicker, I would. But there was no way around the dispute that existed at that time, other than complete and total capitulation, and that was not on. Was the honourable member advocating that the Government should have conceded all the points to them? From our point of view the situation is that we will help the growers wherever we can. The ‘Australian Endeavour’ will continue to be available to carry these shipments to New Zealand as will other ships in the Australian trade. I say this to the honourable member: Stop playing politics. Let us all work together as .best we can.

Mr Giles:

– What can the Minister do to solve the problem?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Maybe the honourable member can tell me.

Mr Giles:

– You are the Minister. I am not in government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Angas will cease interjecting.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The honourable member for Angas is the bright boy who knew all the answers. We have given him some answers. On the night when I replied to the honourable member on the adjournment I told him what to do and what the growers should do. They did that and my suggestion bore fruit, did it not?

Mr Giles:

– Yes.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Right. Unfortunately, the engineers decided to pull a dispute at the same time. That was the unfortunate part about the matter, otherwise it would have been 100 per cent successful. I am confident that now this circumstance is out of the road the shipments will go through as normal. This is the result of a number of things which have been done by this Government. It has solved the dispute which existed between the New Zealand unions and the Australian maritime industry. Things are going all right. The honourable member is just unlucky on this occasion.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– At question time today I directed a question to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) concerning two points. The first referred to the possibility of index relating the benefits paid in respect of persons in nursing homes. The Minister evaded the issue. He gave no direct answer to that very great problem which confronts a large number of the elderly sick in our community, and the families who have a concern for their welfare. But tonight I do not wish to deal with that topic because in the time available it would not be possible to cover all aspects of that very serious situation. The relief which has been given thus far is only temporary, and the patients and those caring for them in nursing homes are faced with the prospect of going from one crisis, from which there has been temporary relief, to another crisis as escalation occurs in wages, nurses salaries and food prices. The second part of my question related to the matter of the urgently needed increase in pensions. If pension purchasing power is to be restored there is a very pressing need for a substantial pension increase. But this morning at question time the Minister for Social Security refused to answer that question. In fact, he failed to indicate the amount of the urgently needed pension increase. Also he refused to tell the pensioner population the date from which pension increases will be payable.

When we talk of the pensioner population we direct our attention not only to the aged but also to the invalid and, possibly more importantly, to those pensioners who are widows and deserted wives who have dependent children and who are facing a most terrible problem in meeting the day to day costs of living. The Labor Government has announced that it will delay the presentation of this year’s Budget. It will be brought in a month later than usual. It now looks as though pension increases will be delayed a month. It now seems clear that the Minister will refuse to back-date the pension increase to the usual day in October from which, in the past, pension increases have taken effect. Therefore, today pensioners are faced with a double doubt - when will they get a pension increase and by how much will the pension rise? Increases of SI. 50 a week promised in 1972 by Labor would, in 1974, be mean and miserly. Today $1 is needed to buy what could be purchased with less than 70c 18 months ago. Today the annual rate of increase in average weekly earnings and in the cost of living is so high that pensions must be raised in the next Budget by at least $3 a week and possibly substantially more if the real value of pension spending power is to be maintained.

For those who are paying rent there is an urgent need for at least a 50 per cent increase in the supplementary assistance or rent allowance. If we look at the 1972 policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to which so many of his colleagues and supporters constantly refer, we find that he stated:

The basic pension rate will no longer be tied to the financial and political considerations of annual Budgets.

If that is so, why did not the Minister today tell us the date from which the pensions would be increased? Why did he not tell us the amount by which the pensions would be increased, drawing that amount from the relevant index because the Minister has promised to relate it to average weekly earnings? Yet, for so long as the Labor Government has been in office, every pension increase has been made in the context of financial and political considerations. If the Minister were genuine in his desire to take pension determination out of the political area, he would today have been able to stand up in this House and say to me: ‘Yes, I can tell the honourable member for Sturt that pensions will be increased as from’, and he would have given the date. He also could have said: ‘Pensions will be increased by not less than’, and he would have told us the minimum figure drawn from the relevant index by which pensions must be increased if the Government is to honour its promise that pensions will be index related and taken out of the arena of politics. But no. His answer was that it was a matter of policy, a matter of Government determination in the context of the Budget, a matter of politics, a matter related to financial considerations. How can the poor and the needy within our community, those who are dependent on incomes of 25 per cent, or less, of average weekly earnings continue to look to the future with any degree of certainty unless they are assured of the amount by which their incomes will be increased and the date from which those increases will take effect? The Prime Minister in the policy speech to which I have referred said that pensions would never be allowed to fall below the index related figure. Every day and every week that goes by, those pensions are falling in value. The amount of groceries, food and clothing that a pensioner can buy this week is more than he will be able to buy next week with the same pension upon which he is dependent. If this Government is genuine in its desire to take pensions out of politics it must immediately announce the date and the amount of the increase.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 345

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Research Grants

Question No. 92

Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. During the past three years two grants to an organisation have been appropriated to the Department.
  2. Grants to the Australian National University for research into the plant disease PHYTOPHTHORA CINNAMONII were made as follows:

Department of the Capital Territory (Question No. 120)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Seven.
  2. D. M. Kerkin, J. Goldstein, J. Dash, H. N. Symington, E. McGuire, E. Hunter, R. J. Draheim.
  3. D. M. Kerkin, promoted Social Worker, Class 2, 30.8.73; J. Goldstein, promoted Social Worker, Class 2, 8.11.73; J. Dash, promoted Social worker, Class 2, 30.8.73; H. N. Symington, promoted Social Worker, Class 2, 30.8.73.

Social Worker, Class 2

Supervise social welfare activities in a regional office and carry out social work involving difficult and complex cases.

  1. McGuire, promoted Social Worker, Class 4, 25.1.73.

Social Worker, Class 4

Plan, co-ordinate and control social welfare operations in the Australian Capital Territory. Advise on work programmes and the effect of developments in Government programs.

  1. Hunter, transferred Clerk, Class 8, 7.5.73.

Clerk, Class 8

Continuously review and recommend amendments where necessary to legislation in the Land Policy Branch. Examine and prepare recommendations on proposals for new forms of land development.

  1. J. Draheim, promoted Librarian, Class 2, 10.1.74.

Librarian, Class 2

Co-ordinate the Departmental Library System. Establish, review and modify library practices and procedures for the Department. Investigate and recommend changes in library policy. Develop library collections.

Aid Programs in Indonesia (Question No. 131)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many Australians are engaged in projects as part of aid programs in Indonesia.
  2. On what projects are they engaged.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. At 30 June 1974 there were sixty-five experts serving under the Australian Government’s aid programs in Indonesia.
  2. (a) Australian Telecommunications Mission (26), (b) West Kalimantan Roads Project (13), (c) Denpasar Water Supply System (7), (d) Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (6), (e) Bogor Water Supply System (3), (f) Australian/Asian Universities Co-operation Scheme (6), (g) Miscellaneous: Education and Communications (4).

Margarine (Question No. 1871

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. When Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd was granted a licence to produce margarine in the Australian Capital Territory, were applications called for the licence from other manufacturers.
  2. If so, which manufacturers applied, and why was the decision made in favour of Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd.
  3. If not, why was this company granted the licence without other application being considered.

Mr BRYANT - The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. There is no legislation in the Australian Capital Territory requiring producers of margarine to hold a licence.
  2. and (3) See answer to (1).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 July 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740717_reps_29_hor89/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant