House of Representatives
2 August 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1045

JOINT SITTING

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that this morning 1 was served with a writ of summons from the Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia commanding me within 21 days to cause an appearance to be entered by me in the High Court of Australia in an action at the suit of Sir Magnus Cameron Cormack and James Joseph Webster, and notifying me that, in default of my so doing, the plaintiffs may proceed therein and judgment may be given in my absence.

Also served was a Statement of Claim and a notice that the Court will be moved before the Right Honourable Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of Australia at the Court House, Darlinghurst, in the State of New South Wales, on the second day of August 1974 at the hour of 9.45 o’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard on the hearing of an application on behalf of Sir Magnus Cameron Cormack and James Joseph Webster for certain orders listed in the notice. I am informed by the Clerk of the House that similar documents were served on him this morning.

For the information of the House I lay on the table a copy of the documents served on me and also on the Clerk of the House.

page 1045

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pornographic Literature and Films

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

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

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 is 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 Mr McLeay.

Petition 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 Mr Wentworth.

Petition received.

page 1046

STATES GRANTS (PETROLEUM PRODUCTS) ACT 1965-1973

Notice of Motion

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I give notice of my intention to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965-1973.

page 1046

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is the Prime Minister aware that differing views on the problems of the Austraiian economy by many of his Ministers and disagreement within Caucus have increased the confusion and added to the lack of confidence apparent in the Australian community? Will the Prime Minister concede that announcements made at Premiers Conferences, mini-Budgets and ad hoc decisions have given an impression of fragmentation and not consistency which he spoke about in the House yesterday? Will he inform me whether in his view progress can be made in future Caucus and Cabinet meetings on an overall policy for the Australian economy which his Cabinet can agree with and Caucus will support? If so, will the honourable gentleman inform the House whether he, as head of Government, will announce it as soon as possible?

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

– The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the third question is yes. The answer to the last question is that the Treasurer or I, whichever is appropriate, will announce the Government’s economic measures on the appropriate occasions.

page 1046

QUESTION

LAND ACQUISITIONS IN VICTORIA

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I preface my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction by saying that the Minister will re member that some weeks ago during this session I asked him a question about land deals by the Victorian Housing Commission at Sunbury and Melton. In his reply he said he would supply information for the House. I now ask whether any information is available. If so, what is it?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Officers of my Department have instituted and carried on inquiries in connection with the Melton-Sunbury land deals which were the subject of innuendo-

Mr McLeay:

– I raise a point of order. There is a question on notice relating to this very matter. I have not had time to find the number of the question but it is addressed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I know of the question to which the honourable member refers. It relates to an entirely different matter in that he asks about the relative cost of land acquisition in Melton-Sunbury as against the cost of land acquisition in Albury-Wodonga. The matter directed to me by the. honourable member for Burke is in an entirely different context.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have no chance of finding what the question is about because there are about 1,000 questions on the Notice Paper. Unless the honourable member for Boothby can specify the number of the question I think the Minister should answer the question just asked. If the honourable member for Hunter wants to be excused he may leave the chamber.

Mr James:

– I know I am full in the face but that is not it. You misjudge me, Sir.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Inquiries were instituted in regard to the land at Melton and Sunbury which was the subject of innuendo and aspersions by a leading metropolitan daily. The newspaper concerned made a suggestion to the effect that the land had been acquired on too expensive a basis. Inquiries have established that Housing Agreement funds were not used for the purpose of this land acquisition. The money used was an amount in excess of $1 Om which was the accumulation of surpluses arising from the sale of 38,000 Housing Commission homes in Victoria over a period of years. The inquiries already have, obtained very useful information but I reget to. say that the Victorian Government has now intimated that it refuses to cooperate any further, particularly in respect of our request for documented information concerning the Victorian Valuer-General’s valuation of the land acquisitions. In fact the Acting Premier of that State, Mr Thompson, has communicated with the Prime Minister indicating his Government’s unpreparedness to co-operate on that matter and the other outstanding issues with which the inquiry is concerned. One thing is certain: Although Housing Agreement funds might not have been used it is undoubtedly true that Housing Commission homes built at Melton and Sunbury will bear the cost of the land aquisition charges and if they were excessive, as has been claimed by the metropolitan daily, these will be reflected in rentals and in house sale prices.

page 1047

QUESTION

CHILD CARE PROGRAM

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In his election policy speech he said that the Labor Party’s child care program reflected the recommendations of the Australian Prc-schools Committee, the Australian Social Welfare Commission and the Priorities Review Staff. What recommendations had the Prime Minister received from the Priorities Review Staff before he delivered his policy speech? Will he table the report in which they were contained? Were the recommendations consistent with those contained in the report of the Social Welfare Commission which advocated an expenditure of $130m in the 1974-75 year? Did he make a promise which he knew he would not keep? What information, trends or other reports have become available in the last 12 weeks which caused him to renege on his promise so that those who relied on it now post him as a $100m defaulter?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– This matter was debated yesterday. I notice that the honourable gentleman was not given a guernsey in the debate.

page 1047

QUESTION

OIL PRICES

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. The Minister would be aware of the confusion that existed in the community during the recent election campaign following upon the alleged statements by the Leader of the Country Party in regard to world parity prices for oil. Can the Minister inform the House as to the effect of the implementation of such a policy on our overseas passenger carrier Qantas Airways Ltd?

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

– We are all aware of the implications of the policy that was announced by the Leader of the Country Party during the early stages of the election campaign in March and the effects that it would have had on inflation in Australia.

Mr Nixon:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister knows full well that the Leader of the Country Party explained the true position in respect of this matter yesterday. The Minister is completely ignoring that explanation and he is trying to confound the situation again.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! What the Leader of the Country Party has said is not a responsibility of the Minister for Transport. The Minister is quite entitled to talk about the cost of fuel and so on but he is not entitled to talk about the remarks of the right honourable gentleman that has nothing to do with his portfolio.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I was asked what would be the effect of such a price increase on fuel. If that policy had been put into effect, that is, if the country had been unfortunate enough to have a Liberal-Country Party Government elected to office-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is not responsible for what other people say. He is responsible for giving information concerning his own Department. He is not responsible for what anybody in another Party says.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The facts are that if the price of Australian fuel had been increased to bring it up to world parity prices, which was being advocated at that time, it would have cost-

Mr Nixon:

– I raise a point of order. This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. I ask the Minister to come back to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– If the price of Australian crude had been brought up to world parity, as had been advocated by the Country Party-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is out of order. He is not responsible, in answering a question and giving information, for what a member of the Country Party has said. I ask the Minister to answer the question in regard to the effects of increasing the price of fuel. 1 ask the Minister not to refer to what the Leader of the Country Party said because that is entirely out of order.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Very good, Mr Speaker. If the price of Australian crude were brought up to world parity this would have an effect on shipping charges. It would at least double freight charges. It would cost the international airline Qantas approximately SI 9m a year. These are only some of its effects. Not only would it have those effects on the overseas freight rates of our international carrier but also it would have a similar serious effect on the freight charges and fares of our domestic airlines. It would need a considerable increase in fares to cope with it. The general overall effect on the economy of the increased costs outlined would have been disastrous.

page 1048

QUESTION

OIL PRICES

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Will he give, here and now, a clear, unequivocal undertaking that the price of crude oil will not be increased in Australia for the next 5 years?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is out of order. It is definitely a matter of policy.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. It is relevant to ask the Minister what the Australian Government will be doing for the next 5 years.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He can ask for an explanation of Government policy.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the confidence he has expressed in the Australian Labor Party Government and the clear assurance that it will be the Government for the next 5 years and for many years after. I would be delighted to be in a position to indicate to him that there would not be any increases in the price of crude oil, but my crystal ball is not operating too well today as I am sure his is not. The question that was asked the honourable mem’ber for Port Adelaide was directly as to what would have been the effect on the Australian economy and Qantas Airways Ltd if crude oil prices in Australia had been brought up to world parity as was advocated by the Australian Country Party in the recent election campaign.

page 1048

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr James having addressed a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think it would be most unwise for the Minister to answer such a question. This is a very serious matter.

Mr Enderby:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that this is too serious a matter for comment to be made on it at this stage. The question is out of order.

Mr Enderby:

– I rise to order. It is indeed a very serious matter. The action-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not asking the Minister to debate it. I have just ruled the question out of order. Is the Minister taking a point of order?

Mr Enderby:

– The point of order I take is this: There are 2 principles involved here. One is the sub judice rule you have correctly adverted to and the other concerns the privileges of this House and the entire Parliament. The sub judice rule is a matter for your discretion but the privileges of this House and the whole Parliament are of prime and basic importance. In the 17th and 18th centuries parliamentary struggles took place. Stockdale and Hansard and other cases-

Mr Ellicott:

– I rise to order-

Mr Enderby:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am about to get some free advice so I would like to get it from both sides of the House if I may.

Mr Enderby:

– Continuing my point of order, there can be little doubt that the resort by the 2 Liberal senators should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is debating the question and is out of order in doing so. In regard to the matter of the privileges of this House, without debating the question before the High Court, I think the Minister should seek leave to make a statement after question time to deal with the privileges of this House only and not in regard to the case that is before the High Court; that is. the details of the case.

Mr Enderby:

– May I continue on the point of order, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, you are going to debate the question.

page 1048

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Science advise whether there are 2 types of PAL television receivers for colour television? If so, can he advise of the difference in price?

Is he aware that unscrupulous dealers might buy the cheaper PAL system from Japan and sell it at the higher price? Will the Government make sure that consumers are protected?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There are 2 PAL sets, one produced by Telefunken and the other produced through the agency in Japan. There is no essential difference in the 2 sets, but I think one should be careful of the PAL bypass system which is not as effective as the full PAL sets. In the course of the next 2 weeks we shall produce a buyers’ guide to colour television sets. This will set out in detail the technical qualities of the sets. In that sense we are taking every step to ensure that the interests of the consumers in Australia are fully protected.

page 1049

QUESTION

UNIFORMS FOR AMBASSADORS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House. Has he seen reports of an alleged leak from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Australian diplomats will be provided with a uniform for certain occasions? Will he ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to oppose this suggestion on the basis that the Australian Labor Party, and I hope this Government, does not believe in uniforms for civilians? Secondly-

Mr Peacock:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to question No. 834 on the notice paper which deals with this specific matter.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– But not with the reasons for it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Question No. 834 definitely deals with Australian diplomats wearing uniforms so in that respect the question is out of order.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– But Mr Speaker, my question asks the Prime Minister to make certain representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for certain reasons which I am putting to him in the form of a question. , Mr SPEAKER - Let us hear your question so that we may see whether it is in order.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to oppose this suggestion on the basis that, firstly, the Australian Labor Party, and I hope this Government, does not believe in uniforms for civilians and, secondly, that such attempts at enforcing a synthetic Australian nationalism would be unnecessary if a greater proportion of our diplomats came from the State school system rather than the so-called Great Public Schools or similar private schools?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I myself have derived some diversion from reading some newspaper articles on this subject. I am sure that my hilarity is shared by all honourable members. Many pieces of formal dress such as white tie and tails or full morning dress can be regarded as appropriate for some formal occassions. I remember in the 1950s, when Parliament was opened, Ministers deemed it appropriate to wear striped trousers and short black coats. They did not, in fact, bring their bankers’ bowlers with them. Nevertheless, that was regarded as appropriate dress for Ministers on those occasions. I am glad to say that the opening of Parliament this time there was only one parliamentarian - a very distinguished one and for all too short a period a Minister - who deemed it appropriate to wear that dress. There are many overseas posts where it is incumbent upon diplomats to wear-

Mr Chipp:

– Are you talking about Senator Greenwood, Mr Killen or Dr Forbes? There were three.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Was not Killen the only one?

Mr Chipp:

– No, there were Senator Greenwood, Mr Killen and Dr Forbes.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am told that the honourable member for Barker and Senator Greenwood also wore that dress. I hope that honourable members will not take offence if I say that in that company the honourable member for Moreton was outstanding and memorable. I was saying that Australian diplomats have found it uncomfortable to wear the appropriate formal dress or the dress considered appropriate in some overseas countries. From time to time, discussion has taken place amongst Australian diplomatists concerning a simpler, more comfortable and perhaps Australian style of dress. Honourable members will have noticed that until the present President of France was sworn in it was usual for top personages in France to wear a white tie and tails during the daytime. Accordingly, many Australian diplomatists had to do so. They had to obey the dictates of protocol in that way. Some of them felt uncomfortable in having to do so. I would think that it is not accurate or fair to say that the Department of Foreign Affairs is itself designing or encouraging the wearing of a new uniform or form of dress. However, it is a matter which diplomatists do discuss from time to time. It is a matter that they have to live with. As I understand it the Secretary of the Department is receiving suggestions from the members of his staff who have to live with these habits in various countries.

page 1050

QUESTION

WAGE AND SALARY INCREASES

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface a question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration by saying that I have read with interest the proposals that he has persuaded the Government to put to the forthcoming Moore conference on wage fixation. While expressing my sincere hopes for a successful outcome of the conference, I also note that the best informed economic commentators have stated flatly that his proposals will not work. Is he aware that the Opposition and myself in particular have put forward proposals in terms of a negotiated national guideline for wage and salary increases which could, in effect, embrace a form of indexation? Further, although some commentators have also poured a bucket on these proposals, as the Minister is a fair man, not to say a statesman, would he arrange for these views to be drawn to the attention of Mr Justice Moore, since presumably only parties to the original wage hearing are in a position to. present views themselves?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have never regarded economists as being very good at settling industrial disputes. However, I had the advantage of reading the paper which the honourable gentleman wrote on the matter of wage indexation quite recently. I took into account all that he said in that paper in making my recommendations to Cabinet. Naturally, there was not very much in it that appealed to me.

page 1050

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is it definite Government policy to force a long term cut-back in the Australian textile industry? If so, why? If not, has the Government made a decision to reduce the 25 per cent tariff cut in relation to textiles on the basis that charity begins at home and that our workers deserve security of employment before overseas workers in this industry? Is the Prime Minister aware that with another 70 dismissals in Launceston yesterday nearly 700 textile workers have now lost their jobs in 3 textile mills in Launceston and George Town, where re-employment is almost impossible?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did answer a couple of questions on this subject last week. It is not the function of any government, it is not the intention of my Government, to force people to invest in any particular industry or to work in any particular industry. The fact is that for many years the textile industry has been proved to be one of decreasing attraction for investors and employees. If honourable gentlemen compare the statistics turned up by the censuses in 1966 and 1971 they will find that at a time of import quotas or embargoes or prohibitive tariffs the number of people working in this industry was consistently declining. I pointed out the other day - I believe it to be accurate - that if men or women lose their jobs in the textile industry in metropolitan areas they are able to find other employment. I also noted that there are some country towns - in particular, I said, in Victoria and the Hunter Valley - where at the present time alternative employment is not readily available for women who lose their jobs in the textile industry. In those circumstances I pointed out 2 things: First, it was not a proper economic priority to insist that Australians should have to pay more for textiles across the board in order to maintain employment in every possible textile factory; secondly, the best way to ensure employment in smaller centres was to increase and diversify the opportunities for employment.

To meet the position of firms or individuals unable to find employment or disadvantaged by any tariff cuts, the Government has instituted the Structural Adjustment Board and the national employment and training system. These will provide a very much better avenue for investors, managers and employees than the textile industry is likely to provide in Australia. The Government is pursuing a policy of selected growth centres which will provide much better, more numerous and more varied opportunities for employment in Australia. We are carrying out these programs in co-operation with every State which is willing to co-operate. The Australian Government is co-operating with the Government of Tasmania in the Tamar district. A question for me to answer on this matter is on the notice paper. It is therefore not appropriate for me to go into greater detail about it.

I do urge the honourable gentleman and other honourable gentlemen who speak about these matters not to lose sight of the wood for the trees. For various reasons, for many years there has been declining employment and investment in the textile industry. Economic rationality is not displayed or promoted by the arguments that were put in some sections of Australia, particularly in Victoria, during last May. For instance, one company in the La Trobe Valley came out with an inflammatory statement that it would have to put off 300 people unless the Australian Government were to restore the 25 per cent tariff cut and were to impose embargoes on textiles. That company had never employed more than 70 people. It received very good cover at the time. The Government wm do justice to firms and individuals disadvantaged by Government decisions or other inevitable economic circumstances.

Mr Nixon:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I point out to the Prime Minister that V. Mayes and Co. has since closed down.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

page 1051

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: NEW SOUTH WALES GRAIN ELEVATORS BOARD DISPUTE

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Did the Australian Labor Party promise prior to its assumption of office on 2 December 1972 that there would be better industrial relations if it were to assume office? Is it a fact that a dispute between the NSW Grain Elevators Board and certain unions over a wage demand has already cost the wheat and coarse grain growers of NSW $20m in deferred exports and over $lm in demurrage? Is that indicative of the Government’s inability to improve industrial relations? What action does the Government intend to take to achieve an immediate settlement of that dispute in order to avoid a possible loss of grain sales contracts overseas and export earnings at a time when our balance of trade is deeply in the red?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, the Australian Labor Party did promise prior to the 1972 election that, if it were elected to government and if it were given the opportunity to put into effect its industrial relations policy by way of making certain amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it could and would introduce a better industrial relations climate. We have already made 3 separate attempts to give effect to that promise. Each time the attempt has been thwarted by the Senate. This week we have in this House again 2 pieces of legislation that would make it possible to give effect to that promise. The Opposition here has announced already that it proposes to persuade its colleagues in the Senate to reject those pieces of legislation again. It is utterly impossible for us to give effect to our promises while the Opposition obstructs the very vital legislation that is needed to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in order to make that possible.

I will examine the details of the dispute to which the honourable member has referred. So far as I know or as at present advised, which is another way of putting it, the dispute is covered by the Industrial Commission of New South Wales and therefore does not come within the purview of the Australian Government. In any event, 1 should remind the honourable gentleman that the Government itself, as a government, under the Constitution has no power directly to intervene in these industrial disputes. The High Court of Australia has said time and time again - in no fewer than 166 different cases since 1904 - that the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament have no power directly to intervene in industrial relations. The only power we have is to pass legislation to give the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission limited powers to act. But they are very limited powers which means that even the Commission has very little power to do the things that are sometimes necessary. If we had the powers which the New South Wales State Government has - indeed which all the State governments have - in relation to industrial matters, then we could be blamed, 1 suggest, whenever we failed to exercise those powers to bring about settlements. That is not the case with the Australian Government. It has no power directly to intervene. Very often the Commission has no power to do the things that are needed. This particular case, so far as I am informed, is one which the honourable member ought to direct to the Premier of New South Wales.

page 1051

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Overseas Trade. Is it a fact that prior to the Australian Government’s tariff cuts of 25 per cent the Australian textile and clothing industry was the most over-protected in the world? Is it a fact that most countries, including Canada, South Africa and Western

Europe, had no more than from 5 to 25 per cent tariffs on clothing items, and that Australian tariff rates were 60 per cent, which in some cases was five or six times higher than those of any other country? Is it a fact that it was, and still is, the most over-protected industry in Australia?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not want to cover the ground adequately covered by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago when he answered a similar question. But it is a fact that for a long time now the Australian textile industry has been examined by the Tariff Board, which has been supported by Governments from both sides of politics in its mandate to examine Australian industry and to determine where it is efficient and economic. The Tariff Board has examined the textile industry on many occasions and has in fact found that it was very highly protected. Sometimes the effective rates were much higher than those just mentioned by the honourable member in his question. It is true that generally the textile industries in other countries are not as highly protected but in some countries they are. I think members of the House and the public have to take into acount all aspects of this question. It is not desirable from the community point of view to have employment in industries that are not efficient. Certain parts of the textile industry have not been efficient. Its capital investment is often too small and it has not kept up to date. It has not been able to afford to keep up to date and consequently in many of those places the productivity of the industry is low and the wages are low. I do not think it is a responsibility of a government from this side of politics to help maintain people in employment where the wages are low, where the working conditions are bad and where the hours are often very long, and that is often the consequence of maintaining these old and conservative industries.

I want to make the point that the whole of the textile industry is not like that. There are some very efficient parts of it. If honourable members examine the situation carefully they will find that the efficient parts of the industry are growing quite rapidly and that the inefficient parts are not growing. As the Prime Minister pointed out there, has been a decline in employment in the textile industry for a long time. That is a long term economic process that neither tariffs nor anything else can prevent or discourage. I think another thing has to be pointed out. In the year 1972-73 there was a considerable upsurge in demand for everything in Australia. I have often pointed out where this originated. In responding to that demand a good many industries - like some of the decentralised ones in Victoria - grew very rapidly. Most of the trouble is occurring in Victoria and in Launceston. In those places employment increased considerably and even-

Mr Holten:

– Wangaratta?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, even in the case of Wangaratta. I went through the Wangaratta Woollen Mills Ltd in recent weeks and I discovered quite a number of people who had not been employed there for very long and who had come from other parts of Victoria in response to advertisements for employees of different kinds. Consequently the employment level rose considerably. What has happened in a number of cases is that employment has come back to a more normal level and some of the unemployment that has occurred is part of that process. I think the need here is not to stick to rigorous conservatism and have a doctrine that every industry shall remain and that every person shall remain employed where he was last month or last year, whatever the conditions may be. What we need, and what a series of governments before this one was most deficient in, is a program to assist effectively people to be transferred to more productive employment. For 23 years nothing positive was ever done in this Parliament in that direction. Consquently, when this Government came to office after many years of deficiencies it has not been easy to establish in a short period of time the necessary machinery for the purpose.

I refer, as the Prime Minister did, to the Structural Adjustment Board - that kind of legislation should have been before this Parliament 20 years ago - and the retraining scheme which is under the supervision of the Minister for Labor and Immigration. That sort of legislation should have been before this Parliament 20 years ago. If this legislation had been introduced we would now have the institutions and the trained people to do these jobs. But honourable members opposite have sat conservatively in response to every lobbying interest that has ever been able to come to this Parliament. Honourable members opposite have responded conservatively to them. A totally different attitude is needed and I think that has been revealed to the textile industry. I think that the most efficient and best parts of the textile industry in this country will grow substantially, but I do not have a good view of the future for those in the industry who have not been able to keep up to date and who do not warrant a place in a modern economy.

page 1053

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I present tables of:

  1. Committees, commissions of inquiry and task forces reporting to Government;

  2. Reports tabled in the Parliament of inquiries instituted by:

    1. the present Government; and
    2. the previous Government.
  3. Statements arising from meetings between the Australian Government and State Government Ministers.
  4. The text of treaties and the like presented to Parliament; and
  5. The Government’s welfare reforms.

These tables bring up to date the tables 1 presented on 31 May and 13 December the last sitting days of the autumn and Budget sessions last year. I seek leave to have the tables incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 1053

COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY AND TASK FORCES REPORTING TO THE GOVERNMENT

Aboriginal Land Rights Commission (First Report tabled 22 August 1973)

Aboriginal Bilingual Education in Schools - Advisory Group (Report tabled 15 March 1973)

Adelaide Airport Advisory Committee

A.C.T. Education Authority - Assessment Panel (Report tabled 31 May 1973)

A.C.T. and New South Wales - Impact of growth of Canberra

Aircraft Industry Working Group

Australian Council for the Arts (Report tabled 8 November 1973)

Australian Post Office Commission of Inquiry

Australian Pre-schools Committee

Australian Schools Commission - Interim Committee (Report tabled 30 May 1973)

Biological Effects of Nuclear Explosion Fallout -

Academy of Science (Report tabled 2 May 1973)

Biological Effects of Nuclear Explosion Fallout -

Meeting between Australian and French Scientists (Report tabled 17 May 1973)

Citizen Military Forces - Committee of Inquiry

Child Care Standards Committee

Child Care Research Advisory Committee

Computerisation of Criminal Data Committee

Computerisation of Legal Data Committee

Education for Community Recreation Workers

Employment Problems in the Port of Portland (Report tabled 3 April 1973)

Employment Statistics - Committee of Inquiry

Health Insurance Planning Committee (Report tabled 2 May 1973)

Homeless Men and Women - Working Party

Immigration Advisory Council - Committee on Community Relations

Immigration Task Force (All States) (Reports tabled 29 August 1973, 10 October 1973, 15 November 1973)

Institutions of Tertiary Education in Sydney, Melbourne, Albury-Wodonga - Location, Nature and Development (Report tabled 3 May 1973)

Lake Pedder Inquiry (Interim Report tabled 13 September 1973)

Land Tenure - Commission of Inquiry into (First report tabled 4 December 1973)

National Estate - Committee of Inquiry

National Hospitals and Health Services Commission - Interim Committee (Report tabled 30 May 1973)

National Population Inquiry (as extended on 4 March 1973)

National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme - Committee of Inquiry

National Superannuation - Committee of Inquiry

Nursing Homes Fees Review - Committees of Inquiry (All States)

Open University Inquiry

Pilbara Study

Poverty Inquiry

Protection Commission - Inquiry re-formation (now named Industries Assistance Commission (Crawford Report) Report tabled 27 September 1973)

Recreation in Australia - the Role, Scope and Development (Report tabled 25 May 1973)

Review of the Continuing Expenditure Policies of the Previous Government (Report tabled 21 August 1973)

River Murray Commission - Working Party (Report received September 1973)

Social Security-Welfare - Advisory Council

Social Welfare Commission (Reports tabled on 30 August 1973 and 4 December 1973)

Steel Prices - Inquiry into proposed increases (Report tabled 28 February 1973)

Study Group on Aboriginal Health

Superannuation pensions - Commonwealth Inquiry into adjustments after retirement (extended terms of reference) (Report tabled 10 April 1973)

Technical and Further Education - Australian Committee

Urban Centre - Components of the growth (Report tabled 11 April 1973)

  1. Those instituted after 31 May 1973

A.C.T. Schools Interim Authority

Australian Government Task Force to investigate Modern Housing Techniques

Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council

Burdekin Project Committee

Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry

Committee on Development of Outdoor Recreation

Committee on Grape Surpluses

Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing

Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy

Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Training

Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy

Committee of Inquiry into workloads in Defence and Research Establishments

Committee of Reference for Defence Forces Pay

Committee on National Uniform Safety Code for Australian Government Employment

Committee on possible ways of increasing imports

Consultation with Young People

Consumer Affairs Council

Emergency Housing Committee

Evaluation Study of Operation and Effectiveness of the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme

Financial Needs for training teachers for special education in tertiary institutions

Financial support for approved private teachers college

Government Industry Panel on Cherries

Housing Standards Committee

Inquiry into Certain aspects of Stevedoring Industry

Inquiry into Aboriginal/Police Relations

Inquiry into Employment in the Building Industry

Inquiry into Impact of Freight Rates on the Tasmanian Economy

Inquiry into Powers over Prices and Incomes

Inquiry Into Technical Education in the A.C.T.

Inquiry into the Implications of Establishing Frequency Modulation Radio Broadcasting in Australia

Inquiry into the prices of certain commodities and services in the A.C.T. and Northern Territory

Interim Commission on Consumer Standards

Interim Committee of the National Councilfor Trade Union Training

Interim Committee on the Production of Pharmaceutical Products

Interim Council for the Curriculum Development Centre

Interim Council for the Study of Australia’s Biological Resources

Interim Executive of the Australian Health Insurance Commission

Interim Primary Schools Libraries Committee

Legal Aid Review Committee

Medical Fees Tribunal

Meeting of Australian and State Government Officials on Safety and Surveillance of Dams

National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupations

National Forensic Institute Committee of Inquiry

Possible development in Australian universities of studies in linguistics, including Aboriginal linguistics

Possible steps to encourage studies in Australian universities of the languages and cultures of people who represent a significant component of Australia’s migrant intake

Quantitative Demand for Recreation Workers

Review Panel on Land Allocations to Builders - A.C.T.

Royal Commission into Petroleum and Petroleum Products

Second Interim Committee for the Schools Commission

Special Committee on Apple and Pear Concentrate The Interim Board for the Proposed Belconnen Mall Authority

Turtle and Crocodile Farming Project in Northern Australia- Inquiry into Ecological Basis, Organisation and Market Prospects

West Australian Airport Advisory Committee

Working Group on Rural Policy

Working Party on Nursing Homes Fees

Working Parly on the Environmental Implications of the Woodchip Industry and the Softwood Forestry Program

Workshop on Aboriginal Health Services and Aboriginal Health Workers

Workshop on Aboriginal Health Research

  1. Those instituted after 13 December 1973

Advisory Committee on Approved Employers for Industrial Research and Development Grants

Australian Housing Standards Advisory Council

Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections

Committee on Integration of Data Systems

Committee to study Photocopying in Australia

Interim Committee of the Capital Territory Health Commission

Joint Government Technical Committee on Mine Waste Pollution of the Molonglo River

Project Team on Childhood Services

Royal Commission into the Australian Public Service

REPORTS TABLED IN THE PARLIAMENT ON INQUIRIES INSTITUTED BY (a) THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT

1973

28 February: Report by Mr Justice Moore on the Inquiry into Steel Price Increases proposed by BHP and A.I.S.- Tabled by Mr Whitlam 15 March: Bilingual Education in Schools in Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory. (Requested by Minister for Education on 22 January 1973)- Tabled by Mr Beazley 3 April: Report on Employment Problems in the Port of Portland- Tabled by Mr Cameron 1 1 April: Components of the growth of Australia’s Major Urban Centres - Tabled by Mr Uren 2 May: Report of the Health Insurance Planning Committee - Tabled by Mr Hayden 2 May: Report from the Academy of Science on the Biological Effects of Nuclear Explosion Fall-out. (Request from Prime Minister 12 February 1973) - Tabled by Mr Whitlam 17 May: Biological Effects of Nuclear Explosion Fall-out. (Meeting between Australia/French scientists, Canberra 7-9 September 1973)- Tabled by Mr Whitlam 24 May: Interim Report of the Australian Council for the Arts. (Request from Prime Minister 23 January 1973)- Tabled by Mr Whitlam 25 May: The Role, Scope and Development of Recreation in Australia - Prepared by Professor John Bloomfield- Tabled by Mr Stewart 30 May: Interim Report of the Australian Schools Commission - Tabled by Mr Beazley 30 May: A Report from the National Hospitals and Health Services Commission Interim Committee - Tabled by Dr Everingham 31 May: A.C.T. Education Authority - Assessment Panel on - Tabled by Mr Beazley 21 August: Review of the Continuing Expenditure Policies of the Previous Government - Tabled by Mr Crean 21 August: Possible Ways of Increasing Imports - Tabled by Mr Crean 22 August: Aboriginal Land Rights Commission - First Report - Tabled by Mr Bryant 22 August: Commonwealth Bureau of Roads on effects of stopping freeway construction in State Capital Cities- Tabled by Mr Uren 23 August: Development of Tourism in Australia - Tabled by Mr Stewart 29 August: Immigration Task Force (New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland) - Tabled by Mr Grassby 30 August: A Report from the Social Welfare Commission - Tabled by Mr Hayden 12 September: Proposal for Australian companies and Securities Legislation - Report by Professor Loss - Tabled by Senator Murphy 13 September: Lake Pedder Inquiry - Tabled by Dr Cass 27 September: Protection Commission - Inquiry re formation of - Tabled by Mr Whitlam 27 September: A review of Public Transport Investment Proposals for the Australian Capital Cities 1973-74 - Bureau of Transport Economics - Tabled by Mr Jones 10 October: Migrant Task Force Committee - Western Australia - Tabled by Mr Grassby 8 November: Australian Council for the Arts - Final report on the future workings of the Council and its Boards - Tabled by Mr Whitlam 13 November: National Estate - Principles and Policies - Submission to the Task Force (by the Department of Urban and Regional Development) - Tabled by Mr Uren 15 November: Migrant Task Force Committee - South Australia - Tabled by Mr Grassby 27 November: Power over Prices and Incomes - Report by Mr T. C. Winter- Tabled by Mr Whitlam 4 December: A report from the Social Welfare Commission concerning Aged Person’s Housing - Tabled by Mr Hayden 4 December: First Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures - Tabled by Mr Bowen 4 December: Re-organisation of the Defence Group of Departments - Tabled by Mr Barnard 5 December: Education for Recreation Workers - Tabled by Mr Stewart 5 December: An Inquiry into Ecological Implications of a Turtle Farming Project - Tabled by Mr Bowen 5 December: An Inquiry into Organisation, Management and Market Prospects of a Turtle Farming Project in Northern Australia - Tabled by Mr Bowen 11 December: Care and Education of Young Children - A Report of the Australian Pre-schools Committee - Tabled by Mr Bowen 12 December: Interim Report on the River Murray Working Party- September 1973 - Tabled by Dr Cass 5 December: Education of Recreation Workers - Tabled by Mr Stewart 1 1 December: Report of the Australian Pre-Schools Committee - Tabled by Mr Bowen 12 December: A report from the Australian Hospitals and Health Services Commission - Tabled by Dr Everingham 12 December: Report on Roads in Australia - Bureau of ‘Roads’ - Tabled by Mr Jones 12 December: ‘Medical Rehabilitation Program for Australia - Report of National Hospitals and Health Services Commission Interim Committee - Tabled by Dr Everingham 13 December: ‘Report of the Advisory Committee on CES Employment Statistics - Tabled by Mr Cameron

1974

7 March: Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy- Tabled by Mr Hayden 21 March: Immigration Task Force - Tabled by Mr Grassby 2 April: Poverty Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Hayden 3 April: Committee on Legal Aid in Australia - Tabled by Senator Murphy 10 April: Committee on Technical and Further Education - Tabled by Mr Beazley 10 April: A Report from the Australian ‘Hospitals and Health Services Commission - Tabled by Dr Everingham 10 April: Computerisation of Legal Data Committee - Tabled by Senator ‘Murphy 10 April: National Forensic Institute Advisory Committee - Tabled by Senator Murphy 13 March: Independent Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting - Tabled by Mr Bowen 10 July: Working Group on Rural Policy - Tabled by Dr Patterson 10 July: National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Bowen 1 1 July: Maritime Industry Commission of Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Bowen 17 July: A Report from the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission - Tabled by Mr Bowen 17 July. Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Training - Tabled by Mr Cameron 17 July: Committee on Integration of Data Systems - Tabled by Mr Bowen 23 July: Australian Post Office Commission of Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Bowen 23 July: Lake Pedder Committee of Inquiry - Tabled by Dr Cass 24 July: C.M.F. Committee of Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Barnard 24 July: National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Hayden 25 July: Task Force to Investigate Modern Housing Techniques - Tabled by- Mr Johnson

Note: A number of other reports have been presented but as they are pursuant to legislation they are not included in this list. Nor have reports from Parliamentary Committees been listed.

REPORTS TABLED BY THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT ON INQUIRIES INSTITUTED BY (b) THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT

1973

I March: Financial Terms and Conditions of Service for Male and Female Members of the Regular Armed Forces - Final Reports of the Committee of Inquiry - Tabled by Mr Barnard 14 March: Immigration Advisory Council - Progress Report of Inquiry into the Departure of Settlers from Australia - Tabled by Mr Grassby

II April: Nursing Home Insurance Proposals. Report of Sub-Committee of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Council (1 August 1972) - Tabled by Mr Hayden 8 May: Teacher Education 1973-75- Report of Special Committee on Teacher Education - Tabled by Mr Beazley 17 May: Report of the Inquiry into Academic Salaries 1973 - Tabled by Mr Beazley 30 May: Re-organisation of the Defence Group of Departments. Report by the Morshead Committee (December 1957 and February 1958)- Tabled by Mr Barnard 11 September: Department of Civil Aviation - Costs and Revenues- Second Report by Working Group to Minister for Civil Aviation (May 1971) - Tabled by Mr Jones 7 November: Defence Legal Services - Report of the Committee of Review (November 1971)- Tabled by Mr Barnard

1974

25 July: Report of Committee of Inquiry - Integration of Medical Services of the Armed Forces (March 1971)- Tabled by Mr Barnard 25 July: Report by Tertiary Education (Services’ Cadet Colleges) Committee - Tri-Service Academy within Australia (January 1970) - Tabled by Mr Barnard

STATEMENTS ARISING FROM MEETINGS BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERS

1973

I March: Communique of meetings ‘between Prime Minister and Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria at Albury-Wodonga on 25 January 1973 - Tabled by Prime Minister 6 March: Statement made on 2 March 1973 following meeting between Prime Minister and Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia concerning River Murray and River Murray Commission - Tabled by Prime Minister 13 March: Communique and Points of Agreement of the Ministerial Council Meeting concerning Albury-Wodonga (Aspects of Development and Decentralisation) Tabled by Mr Uren 15 March: Statement regarding meeting on 24 February 1973 between Minister for Housing and Victorian counterpart on proposed Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement- Tabled by Mr Johnson 27 March: Statements made with regard to the Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting in Hobart on 16 February 1973- Tabled by Mr Jones 3 April: Meetings of Australian and State Labor Ministers on 23 February 1973 in Melbourne - Tabled by Mr Cameron

II April: Components of the Growth of Australia’s Major Urban Centres - Tabled by Mr Uren 17 May: Proceedings of Conferences between Australian and State Ministers for Housing (Canberra, 23 March 1973 and Adelaide, 5 April 1973)- Tabled by Mr Johnson 31 May: Conference of Australian Government and State Ministers with Responsibilities for Wildlife Conservation (Melbourne, 9 March 1973)- Tabled by Dr Cass 22 August: Transcript of conference of Australian Government and State Ministers held at Canberra on 10 May 1973- Tabled by Prime Minister 22 August: Communiques relating to meetings of Ministerial Council established to oversight the growth of the Albury-Wodonga areas held on 9 March, 23 May and 4 July 1973- Tabled by Mr Uren 22 August: Summary of discussions at meeting of Ministers responsible for recreation held on 7 June 1973- Tabled by Mr Stewart 29 August: Transcript of conference of Ministers responsible for immigation held at Brisbane on 1 1 May 1973- Tabled by Mr Grassby 11 October: Transcript of minutes of meeting of Australian Water Resources Council held on 27 July 1973- Tabled by Dr Cass 16 October: Record of decisions of Tourist Ministers Council held on 9 and 10 July 1973- Tabled by Mr Stewart 24 October: Report of conference of Australian Education Council held on 14 and 15 June 1973 - Tabled by Mr Beazley 24 October: Summary of resolutions and recommendations of Australian Forestry Council meeting held on 8 June 1973- Tabled by Dr Patterson 20 November: Statement regarding meeting of Australian Government and State Government Ministers concerning export of kangaroo products held on 9 March 1973- Tabled by Dr Cass 29 November: River Murray Waters - Problems associated with use - Summary record of discussions at meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia on 2 March 1973- Tabled by Prime Minister

1974

2 April: Record of the Decisions of the Special Meeting of the Tourist Minister’s Council, held at Sydney 21 September 1973- Tabled by Mr Daly 10 April: Proceedings of Conference of Australian and State Government Ministers held at Canberra, 28- 29 June 1973- Tabled by Prime Minister 25 July: Agreement between the Governments of Australia, N.S.W. and Victoria relating to financial assistance for the development of the Albury-Wodonga area, dated 28 June 1974 - Tabled by Mr Uren 25 July: Summary of Decisions of the first meeting of the River Murray Working Party - Steering Committeeheld on 7 November 1973- Tabled by Dr Cass 25 July: Transcript of Proceedings of Conference of Australian and State Government Ministers (Water Resources) held at Canberra on 7 November 1973 - Tabled by Dr Cass

TEXT OF TREATIES, ETC. PRESENTED TO THE PARLIAMENT

1973

3 April - United Kingdom Australian Trade Agreement - letters exchanged during the process of termination of the Agreement. 4 April - International Cocoa Agreement 1972. 15 May - Convention 131 concerning minimum wage fixing adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 54th session. 22 May - Convention 111 concerning the abolishment of discrimination in employment and occupation adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1958. 29 May_ Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature:

  1. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia relating to Air Services, signed at Sydney on 4 October 1972.
  2. Exchange of Notes between the Government of Australia and the Government cf the United Kingdom constituting an Agreement concerning the establishment of a station to monitor compliance with the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed at Canberra on 31 October 1972.
  3. Agreement between Australian and the Netherlands concerning old Dutch Shipwrecks, signed at The Hague on 6 November 1972.
  4. Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement 1973 drawn up at Ottawa on 24 November 1972 and signed for Australia at London on 30 March 1973.
  5. Agreement Terminating the Commonwealth Agreement of 1969, drawn up at Ottawa on 24 November 1972 and signed for Australia at London on 30 March 1973.

Agreement which has been signed by Australia and which will enter into force after Notes have been exchanged by the signatories:

Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, signed at Canberra on 14 November 1972.

Treaties in relation to which Australia has deposited instruments of ratification:

  1. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty was opened for signature at London, Washington and Moscow on 1 July 1968. Australia signed the Treaty on 27 February 1970. The instruments of ratification were deposited for Australia at London, Washington and Moscow on 23 January 1973.
  2. Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof. The treaty was opened for signature at London, Washington and Moscow on 11 February 1971 and signed for Australia or that date. The instruments of ratification were deposited for Australia at London, Washington and Moscow on 23 January 1973.
  3. Amendments to Article 61 of the Charter of the United Nations. The amendment was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 December 1971. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 13 November 1972.
  4. Protocol amending Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs drawn up at Geneva on 25 March 1972. Australia signed and deposited its instrument of ratification on 22 November 1972.
  5. Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (ILO Convention No. 87) adopted at San Francisco on 17 June 1948. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 28 February 1973.
  6. Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (ILO Convention No. 98), adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1949. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 28 February 1973.

Statute to which Australia has become a party by accession:

Statute of the International Institute for the Unification of Private International Law, drawn up at Rome on 15 March 1940 and acceded to by Australia on 21 March 1973.

Convention and Treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

  1. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, open for signature at London, Moscow and Washington on 28 September 1971 and signed for Australia on 10 April 1972.
  2. Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Austria concerning Extradition, signed at Canberra on 29 March 1973.
  3. Treaty between Australia and Sweden concerning Extradition, signed at Stockholm on 20 March 1973.
  4. Agreement between Australia and Indonesia concerning Certain Boundaries between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, signed at Jakarta on 12 February 1973. 15 October - Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature:
  5. Agreement establishing the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation. signed at Apia on 17 April 1973.
  6. Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between Australia and New Zealand on Rates and Margins of Preference, signed at Canberra and Wellington on 7 May 1973.
  7. Protocol relating to Milk Fat, drawn up at Geneva on 2 April 1973 and signed for Australia on 11 May 1973.
  8. Exchange of Notes between Australia and Laos constituting a further Amendment to the Agreement of 24 December 1963 concerning the Foreign Exchange Operations Fund for Laos, signed at Vientiane on 1 June 1973.
  9. Protocol to Amend the Agreement on North Atlantic Ocean Stations signed at Paris on 25 February 1954 and amended on 13 May 1970. The Protocol was opened for signature at Montreal on 1 December 1972 and signed for Australia on 4 July 1973.
  10. Trade Agreement between Australia and the People’s Republic of China, signed at Canberra on 24 July 1973.
  11. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement Extending the Agreement of 16 October 1968 relating to Scientific and Technical Cooperation, signed at Washington on 30 July 1973.
  12. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning the Launching of seven Acrobee Rockets, signed at Canberra on 18 September 1973.

Agreement and Conventions to which Australia has become a party by accession:

  1. Agreement relating to Refugee Seamen drawn up at The Hague on 23 November 1957 and acceded to by Australia on 18 April 1973.
  2. Convention on Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs signed at Brussels on 15 December 1950 and Protocol of Amendment signed at Brussels on 1 July 1955. Australia acceded to the Convention and Protocol of Amendment on 18 April 1973.
  3. Convention relating to International Exhibitions signed at Paris on 22 November 1928, and amended by the Protocols of 10 May 1948, 16 November 1966 and 30 November 1972. Australia acceded to the Convention as amended by the 1948 and 1966 Protocols on 6 September 1973 and to the 1972 Protocol on 7 September 1973.

Convention and Covenants to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

  1. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, drawn up at Washington on 3 March 1973 and signed for Australia on 21 September 1973.
  2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966 and signed for Australia on 18 December 1972.
  3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966 and signed for Australia on 18 December 1972. 13 December - Treaties to which Australia has become or is about to become a party by accession or acceptance:
  4. Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, done at New York on 28 September 1954.
  5. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, done at New York on 30 August 1961.
  6. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, done at New York on 31 January 1967.
  7. Protocol relating to Refugee Seamen, done at The Hague on 12 June 1973 and accepted by Australia on 10 December 1973.

1974

Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature: 30 July - 1. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning the disposal of United States Government excess property in Australia, signed at Canberra on 9 November 1973.

  1. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the Netherlands amending the Agreement for the Establishment of Air Services on 25 September 1951, signed at Canberra on 5 October 1972 and 24 October 1973.
  2. Agreement between Australia and Canada in respect of the Future Operation of the Trade Agreement of 12 February 1960, signed at Canberra and Ottawa on 24 and 25 October 1973.
  3. Agreement concerning the Voluntary Contributions to be given for the Execution of the Project to Preserve Borobudur, drawn up at Paris on 29 January 1973 and signed for Australia on 6 April 1973.
  4. Agreement between Australia and Sweden on the Exchange of Senior Labour Market Officers, signed at Stockholm on 6 June 1973.
  5. Trade Agreement between Australia and the German Democratic Republic signed at Berlin on 28 February 1974.
  6. Exchange of Notes between Australia and Canada constituting an Agreement amending the Agreement for Air Services of 11 June 1946 and cancelling the Exchange of Notes of 16 March 1951. The Note-, were signed at Canberra on 15 March 1974.
  7. Arrangement regarding International Trade in Textiles drawn up at Geneva on 20 December 1973 and signed for Australia on 9 April 1974.
  8. Exchange of Notes between Australia and Laos, constituting a further amendment to the Agreement of 24 December 1963 concerning the Foreign Exchange Operations Fund for Laos, signed at Vientiane on 30 April 1974.

Statute which has entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by acceptance: 30 July - Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, drawn up at the Hague on 31 October 1951 and accepted for Australia on 1 November 1973.

Treaties which have entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by ratification or accession: 30 July - 1. International Sugar Agreement 1973, drawn up at Geneva on 13 October 1973 and signed and ratified for Australia on 19 December 1973.

  1. Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms, drawn up at Geneva on 29 October 1971 and acceded to by Australia on 12 March 1974.

Treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification: 30 July - 1. Agreement between Australia (acting on its own behalf and on behalf of Papua New Guinea) and Indonesia concerning Administrative Border Arrangements as to the Border between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, signed at Port Moresby on 13 November 1973.

  1. Agreement between Australia and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment, signed at Tokyo on 6 February 1974.

Treaties which have not yet entered into force and to which Australia has become a Contracting State:

  1. By Signature, without reservation as to ratification: 30 July - Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, drawn up at Ramsar (Iran) on 2 February 1971 and signed for Australia at Paris on 8 May 1974.
  2. By accession: 30 July - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties drawn up at Vienna on 23 May 1969 and acceded to by Australia on 13 June 1974.

Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature: 31 July - 1. Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Applicatiion of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons signed for Australia on 10 July 1974.

  1. Protocol suspending Safeguards applied under the Agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America for the Application of Safeguards and providing for the Application of Safeguards pursuant to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons signed on 10 July 1974.

Treaty which has entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by ratification or accession: 1 August - Dock Work Convention (I.L.O. Convention No. 137) ratified for Australia on 25 June 1974.

page 1059

ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– For the- information of honourable members I present the following reports; Survey of Technological Significance of Electronic Components Manufactured in Australia; and Identification of Electronic Components Having Technological Significance.

page 1059

ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report by the Mel-: bourne Institute of Technology entitled The Technological Significance of Electronic Component Manufacture in Australia’.

page 1060

ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Iudustry · Canberra · ALP

– For the information of honourable members 1 present the report entitled The Electronic Components Industry’ dated April 1974.

page 1060

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WILSON:

– Yes, 1 do. At question time today the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) misrepresented me. Yesterday there was a debate on the Government’s default on its child care election promises. Today I asked the Prime Minister a question on this matter. The Prime Minister not only treated a considered and important question with arrogant contempt by refusing to answer it-

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is not a misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to tell us where he was misrepresented by the Prime Minister.

Mr WILSON:

– I was just doing that, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister not only treated a considered and important question with arrogant contempt by refusing to answer it-

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker-

Mr WILSON:

– He also misrepresented me. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s-

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, this is an abuse of a personal explanation. There was no misrepresentation of the honourable gentleman in any way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WILSON:

– Contrary to the Prime Minister’s allegation-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If my memory serves me correctly, what the Prime Minister said was that the honourable member was absent from the House at the time.

Mr WILSON:

– Well, Mr Speaker, contrary to the Prime Minister’s allegation that I did not get a guernsey in the debate -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member must say where he has been misrepresented. Do we have to go through this ever day? The Prime Minister quite clearly said, if my recollection is correct, that the honour able member was not in the House at the time. ‘Mr Peacock - No. He said that he .did not get a guernsey.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 am sorry- that he did not take part in the debate.

Mr WILSON:

– Contrary to the Prime Minister’s allegation that I did not get a guernsey in the debate, I did. The blue sheet which sets out the daily program indicated that the matter of public importance would be debated for 2 hours. I rose to speak. Mr Speaker, you called upon me to speak. The debate was then gagged by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly).

Mr Garland:

– I rise to take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister did his best to stop that statement being made. It would be only common decency for him now to apologise to- the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It was not a personal reflection on the honourable member.

Mr Ruddock:

– You are not interested in it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! When 1 want the advice of the honourable member for Parramatta, I will ask for it. The honourable member has been chipping in quite a lot lately. I ask him to take notice of the Chair and its rulings. There was no personal reflection. Now that the personal explanation has been fully explained, I accept the personal explanation. But there was no personal reflection on the integrity of the honourable member for Sturt.

page 1060

QUESTION

PROPOSED JOINT SITTING

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, 1 wish to make a request of you. I can make my request only in this way. Before the conclusion of today’s sitting, will you prepare a statement on the status of the proclamation of the Governor-General relating to a joint sitting, and the position of members of this House? I do not ask you to do that now because I realise that it would need to be a considered statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did discuss this matte this morning with the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The matter will be taken into consideration.

page 1060

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– In response to a special request, which I think is a reasonable one, from the Opposition Whip, I indicate that the roster for questions without notice for the current sittings will be carried over into the Budget session.

page 1061

GLEBE LANDS (APPROPRIATION) BILL 1974

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1061

FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS BILL 1974

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Clause 3.

The object of this Act is to assist the Australian Government to achieve effective management of the Australian economy by providing a means for:

Clause 14.

Penalty: $5,000.

Clause 15.

Senate’s amendment No. 1 -

In clause 3 (b), after ‘resources’, insert ‘, the ensuring of an adequate level of finance for housing’.

Senate’s amendment No. 2 -

In clause 14, leave out sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause:

The reference in sub-section (1) to policy in relation to the provision of finance is a reference to general policy with respect to the amount of finance that is provided or the purposes for which, or the direction in which, finance is provided.’.

Senate’s amendment No. 3 -

In clause 14, leave out sub-clause (4), insert the following sub-clause:

Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may authorise theReserve Bank to make -

different determinations in relation to registered corporations included in different categories; and

different determinations in relation to different classes of purposes for which, or different directions in which, finance is provided, but, except as provided by paragraph (b), shall not authorise the Reserve Bank to make different determinations in relation to registered corporations included in the same category.’.

Senate’s amendment No. 4 -

In clause 15, after sub-clause (2), insert the following new sub-clause: (2a) Notwithstanding sub-section (2), regulations made for the purposes of sub-section (1) shall authorise the making of a determination in relation to a registered corporation being a building society that carries on business in one State or Territory only that is different from determinations made in relation to other registered corporations being building societies that do not carry on business in that State or Territory or do not carry on business only in that State or Territory.’

Motion (by Mr Crean) proposed:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– This Bill commanded the general support of the Opposition and most of the amendments which have been returned from the Senate originated from this side of the chamber. The Opposition is gratified that the Government has seen fit to accept these amendments in this place. However, there were additional amendments to which the Opposition attached some importance. It attached considerable importance. to the amendment which was numbered 7 when it was moved in this place. It proposed to add the following sub-clause to clause 25 of the Bill:

Without limiting the generality of paragraph 8 (c) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959-1973, the powers conferred on the Reserve Bank by that paragraph are exercisable in relation to registered corporations being building societies.

The effect of that amendment would have been to authorise the Reserve Bank to use, in respect of building societies, the powers contained in section 8 of the Reserve Bank Act.

In drafting that amendment we had in mind a statement made to the Parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 23 May 1973 when he said, in part:

It would be a very proper thing for this Parliament now to see that such basic financial institutions as building societies are equated much more in their operations to banks - that is, we should guarantee their security and in return they should pursue the public interest in their lending policies.

This amendment falls short of the guarantee advocated by the Prime Minister. It does not equate with lender of last resort facilities. But it does - or would, had it been passed - provide the Reserve Bank with a capacity to assist building societies should the Bank consider it to be warranted. In expressing our gratification that the Government has accepted the amendments that were carried in the other place, we press the Government to give further consideration to this line of thought that we have advanced.

One other amendment which was defeated in the other place, to which we attached considerable importance, was the amendment numbered 9. It sought to bring the operations under this Act under the scrutiny of this Parliament. By and large the Act is an enabling one. The Reserve Bank gives effect to it by regulation. We sought by this amendment to introduce the notion of the ‘affirmative resolution’ by which regulations formulated by the Reserve Bank in pursuance of the Act would be brought before the Parliament. I would like to stress - I am sure that the Treasurer (Mr Crean) was aware of it - that there was no suggestion in the amendment that determinations under the regulations be so brought. If it were desirable for the Reserve Bank to give effect to a change of interest rates or a change of asset policy under a regulation which had been brought in and approved by the Parliament then that is a matter of a day to day determination. Perhaps, for instance, a certain group of companies is to be classified as a group and be subject to interest rate control. The regulation in the broad sense should be brought before the purview of both Houses. The Opposition presses the Government to give further consideration to the wisdom of these additional amendments which were moved by this side of the chamber. Again I express the gratification of the Opposition that the amendments carried in the other place have been accepted by the Government.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– In supporting the motion that these amendments be agreed to, I want to make 2 points. The first is that this is one example in a long history of examples of the Australian Labor Government reasonably accepting amendments put forward by the Opposition. I point out that this is something new since the Australian Labor Government took office. I had 3 years in Opposition when reasonable amendments put up by the Labor Party in this place were merely overlooked, stamped on and given scant attention. I hope we will see in this Parliament for many years to come this recognition that all wisdom does not rest on the one side but that there are reasonable amendments and other experiences, even in the Opposition, which can affect legislation.

The second point I want to make is that we welcome the 11th hour conversion of the Opposition to a Financial Corporations Bill. Such legislation is something that the Labor Party has- been suggesting as necessary in this country for at least 20 years. It has been a tragedy since the Reserve Bank was set up to find just how many of our financial institutions were outside the ambit of the Reserve Bank’s authority. This has created many anomalies in our institutions in this country. It has been a long, hard struggle with long, hard work by the officers of the Treasury “and by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) himself, to whom I pay tribute. I am glad that this hard work has now come to the point when we will have an Act in this sphere.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1062

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Clause 4.

Clause 5.

After section 78 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 78a. (1) It is unlawful for a registered organization to contravene or fail to observe a condition to which its registration is subject or to demand or receive contributions to a medical benefits fund or to a hospital benefits fund that are not in accordance with an approval under this Act or are contrary to a direction under this Act.

Senate’s amendment No 1 -

In clause 4, leave out sub-clauses (12), (13) and (14), insert the following sub-clauses:

(a) Where under this section the Minister has refused to approve of a change, whether in whole or in part, the organization may appeal against the decision of the Minister to the Supreme Court of the State or a Territory in which the principal office of the organization is situated.

The Supreme Court of each State is invested with federal jurisdiction and jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court of each Territory to hear and determine appeals under this section.

If on the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied:

that the change insofar as it relates to the benefits provided or to be provided by the organization is or will be beneficial to the contributors; or

that the change insofar as it relates to the contributions payable to the organization is rea sonable having regard to the amounts reasonably required for the purposes of the fund, the moneys readily available for such purposes, the rates of contribution in force before the change, the rates of benefits provided or to be provided by the organization, the liabilities of the organization, the level of reserves and the adequacy of such reserves in the light of prevailing economic circumstances, the Court shall allow the appeal but if the Court is not so satisfied it may either determine what it believes should be the proper benefits or the proper contributions or it may dismiss the appeal.

The decision of the Court shall be deemed to be the decision of the Minister given under this section.

If the Court dismisses the appeal it may at the time of the appeal being dismissed or at any time thereafter make such order as to the Court may seem appropriate to ensure that the rules of the organization are complied with’.

Senate’s amendment No. 2 -

Leave out clause 5.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

-I move:

The amendments come from the Senate. They were moved by the Opposition there. They have changed the complexion of the Bill, in areas where they are effective, somewhat from what was proposed by the Government. Nonetheless, we believe we can still work with these amendments and strive to protect the contributors’ interests and at the same time, as we indicated was our intention at the time we brought the original Bill into the House, preserve the rights of the funds. The 2 things have to be balanced. There has been an imbalance in the past. Contributors’ rights were not being properly attended to. Accordingly we found it necessary to seek urgently, because of circumstances that erupted suddenly in the past several days, to alter the original amending Bill.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– The Opposition is very pleased that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) has seen fit to co-operate with our suggestions, which were moved in the Senate and which we say will not only improve the machinery of the Bill but will also give further protection to the contributors to the Funds. The Opposition is also pleased to learn that the office bearers of the Funds have asked the Minister to see them. We are equally pleased that he has agreed to see them on Monday to try to allow sweet reason to prevail rather than the public confrontation which has taken place in the past. Once again I say that I hope those discussions will be conducted with the knowledge that this is a delicate situation, and also that they will be undertaken in private and not out in the public market place.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I would like to point out that the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) has brought some extraneous matters into this debate. The fact is that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) offered some time ago to see the chairman of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and the chairman of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia. Originally they sent a telegram indicating they were not prepared to see him. I would also like to point out that there was a complete distortion on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s ‘A.M.’ program yesterday morning about just this matter, which should have been corrected this morning. Two segments gave me the impression that the Minister was not prepared to see the chairman and that the Opposition had mediated and was bringing this about. I repeat the word ‘distortion’ about this. Nevertheless I agree with the honourable member for Hotham to the extent that 1 am glad that agreement has now been reached between both sides of the Parliament about this measure in order to bring sanity to the situation and to produce negotiations between the parties.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1064

ROADS GRANTS BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 1 August (vide page 1026).

Clause 3

« D 0 0

Upon which Mr Nixon had moved by way of amendment:

Omit sub-clauses (4) and (5).

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– 1 want briefly to associate myself with and support the amendment moved by the member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). I want to look at this clause in a practical manner. It is all very well for the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to get somewhat up-tight at the suggestion that there is a more practical and reasonable way of carrying out a certain manoeuvre. There are far too many categories in the proposed schedule attached to the Bill. It is all very well for someone sitting in an office in far-away Canberra, removed geographically and demographically from the place where a decision should be made but using too many pigeon holes and trying to fit too many points of view into a certain position can lead to a waste of resources.

It seems to me to be a far more practical proposition to allow people on the spot to decide how money shall or shall not be spent. Under the proposals in clauses 4 and 5 as outlined by the Minister a rigid rule has to be observed. Members of the Opposition prefer to look at this matter in a practical sense. We say that if money has been allocated and if people on the spot fee! at a given time that it is better to transfer this money from one project to another for the purpose of saving resources, manpower and material, and in the long run having the job completed in the quickest time at the lowest possible cost, it is better to have clauses 4 and 5 removed from the legislation to allow this practical solution to be effected. I fully support the amendment.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). I rise to respond to what I regard as one of the worst bouts of arrogance that T have seen a Minister display in this Parliament. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) obviously is adopting standover tactics in saying: ‘You will pass this Bill or 1 will withdraw it and deny the States any more money for roads’. I believe this is a most arrogant attitude to a genuine attempt to try to amend the Bill to suit the requirements not only of State governments but also of local government which do not feel bound to have the Commonwealth Government tell them how to spend money they themselves raise. I think it grossly unfair to try to suppress opposition to bad principles contained in the Bill; to what we regard as bad legislation. Australia is supposed to be a civilised democratic country, not some banana republic or totalitarian dictatorship. I know the Minister lost his temper and was probably tired last evening but that does not excuse him from spelling out an attitude-

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There was no loss of temper. It was a clear statement of fact.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not a point of order. The Minister will have the right to reply later.

Mr HUNT:

– I am sorry, I do not excuse the Minister at ail. We are all human and there are times when we all lose our tempers. Even the Minister for Transport is capable of doing that. I was prepared to excuse the Minister on those grounds. I have lost my temper and have been sorry after the event for having said something. I should have thought that this morning, after having had a good night’s sleep and a good breakfast, the Minister would have been able to think-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable member cease discussing the personal virtues or otherwise of the Minister and debate the amendment.

Mr HUNT:

– I rose because of my concern at the Minister’s response to an attempt to amend the Bill in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition, of local government and of the State governments.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member can do that on the third reading debate if he so wishes.

Mr HUNT:

– In attempting to intimidate the Opposition into not pressing its amendments the Minister is intimidating State governments and hundreds of shire and municipal councils. It is absolutely unfair to say that the Opposition is opposed to attempts by the Government to upgrade the standards of our highways. I do not think anybody could, with any justification, oppose the national highways policy or program. But we object to the manner in which the Minister is endeavouring to achieve this objective and, even more importantly, to satisfy the policy and philosophical objectives of the Government - a policy objective to take control from the States and local government and to remove their powers to determine how they shall spend money they have raised by their own methods. This is money that as elected people they must account, for in their own right.

The Minister and his bureaucracy in Canberra are to determine how local government bodies in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and

Queensland shall spend their money. In fact, this is an attempt to ride roughshod over State and local governments. I think that it is quite unpardonable for them to be told: ‘You will do as you are told or else’. I object very strongly to the Minister’s outburst last night when he said: ‘If you persist with these amendments to this Bill we will withdraw it and we will deny the States any access to funds’. I do not think that is any way in which to discharge the Minister’s responsibility in a federal system. In referendum after referendum the Australian people have upheld the principles of the federal system. How often has any government been able to go to the Australian people and get powers transferred from the States to the Australian Government? I think that is an indication that the Australian people are adhering to the principle of federalism.

What the Government is saying, in effect, is that State and local governments cannot spend any of their money in their own way. Sure, they will be free to spend their own funds subject to the approval arrangements of the Commonwealth. Nowhere in the second reading speech is it explained in any detail at all what the Government intends to do. I regard it as an act of sheer deceit. It is no good coming into this House and saying that the Government has a mandate to take over the control of the expenditure on rural arterial roads, of money raised by State or local governments. The Government does not have a mandate for that, and it knows jolly well that it does not have a mandate for that, because if the Government thought that it had a mandate reference to that fact would have appeared in the second reading speech. This is an attempt to take over the roles of State and local governments in their areas of responsibility. It is the worst act of authoritarian tactics that we have yet seen in this Parliament. They are standover tactics that should be rejected by every fair-minded person. I regard it as an act of political thuggery.

I do not think that many State Departments of Highways and Departments of Local Government, or indeed their Ministers, or many shire councils or municipalities around the countryside are happy with this arrangement. Do not try to say that we are opposed to a national highways program or a policy as such. Of course the States require money from the Commonwealth to assist them to upgrade their roads in order to try to avoid tragic loss of life on the roads. There is not a man sitting in this Parliament who would not subscribe to that policy. But what we are bitterly opposed to is the Commonwealth assuming that it has the right to tell State and local governments how they shall spend the funds that they raise in order to try to improve the services in their own areas. If the Minister will not reconsider the situation, I hope that there are in the Government men who will respond to some of the pressures that must be coming upon them from shire councils and local government bodies, because hundreds of shire councils and local government bodies happen to be in the electorates of members of the Labor Party, and they are opposed to the approach that is embedded in this clause of the Bill.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I rise to support the clause and to oppose the amendment. What the amendment proposes to do, of course, as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has said, is to say: ‘Look, here is a quantity of money for the Australian Government. You go for your life and spend it as you wish.’ But let us reflect on that. If we could see some performance by the people to whom the money is being allocated such an attitude would be justified and there might be some argument for it; there might be some valid reasoning in the argument put forward by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). But let us have a look at the track record.

The traffic chaos in the inner suburban areas of Melbourne reflects the attitude of the State Government to those areas. One sees the way in which the underground railway project has developed. Certain people will reap a harvest from the money paid by taxpayers, not necessarily just in the inner suburban areas of Melbourne but also throughout the State of Victoria. The inner suburban areas are the parking lots for the central business district of Melbourne. I wonder who is in control. The Hamer Government pruned back the monumentally wrong recommendations contained in the engineer’s report of the Transportation Committee, regarding it as clearly an error of judgment. The Hamer Government announced prior to the previous State election that it would prune back the amount of S2,2O0m to be spent on freeway construction. At the present moment the Country Roads Board is continuing to plan and design many of these concrete monstrosities that are tearing the inside out of a beautiful city, and it is doing so with total disregard for the people of Melbourne and without reflecting on the fact that surely people ought to be put before motor vehicles in a city such as that. With a total disregard for and without any respect for the people who live in the inner suburban areas it continues to construct freeways.

If we are to have any hope of anything being done about the recommendations contained in the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety, which was compiled after the Committee had taken reams of evidence, the Australian Government will have to take responsibility and see to it that the money which is allocated to the States and to local government authorities is spent in a proper way. The Government has to ensure that the interests of the people who live in- the suburban areas in our cities are protected by seeing to it that roads are constructed in a proper way, using the types of materials which ensure the safety provisions required. We have to have regard to these things. Surely we should have a view in relation to these matters. We should not allow their control to be wholly vested in people at the local government and State government level who have failed to protect the interests of the community. I think we would be failing in our responsibility if we allowed that to happen. As the Minister said, this is Just not on.

We Should not allocate money in such a way that it is wasted. We have seen the results of the sorts of things that I have pointed out, and I refer again to the points I made about the underground railway project and the fact that the Victorian Government has failed to implement a proper plan of road safety. The elected Government in Victoria has for years and years had a road safety committee to investigate these matters. All that the Victorian Government has done is talk about the problem. After 2 children were killed on the Preston overpass over a reservoir we saw the spectacle of the Premier the next day taking kiddies across the road by hand. What cynicism! What an act of hypocrisy! The Victorian Government is just not doing the job.

I repeat that it is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that proper roads are built and that we do not continue with freeway construction which is totally obnoxious to the people who reside in the inner suburban areas of Melbourne. The construction of freeways shows a total disregard for the wishes of these people. We must have a view about these projects. If we believe that they should not be built, we should be saying that they should not be built, and we should be allocating funds for specific projects.

Mr Millar:

– Do not the Victorians have a say?

Mr INNES:

– They should have a say. All people in Victoria should have a say. The people who represent Federal electorates ought to have a say.

Mr Ruddock:

– All of us should have a say?

Mr INNES:

– Yes, all of us. I do not know what sort of contribution the honourable member for Parramatta would make, but he should have a say. The other point to make when we are talking about road construction is that one does not have to travel many miles out of Melbourne to see that local government has failed totally to do the sorts of things which are absolutely necessary. Quite frankly, when one looks at some of the performances of local government, it is sheer hyprocisy to say that it has the capacity to do the job properly. We think that local governments, State governments and the Australian Government should combine to plan for future road construction. If there is to be planning in a general way, why should it not foe in concert, with each of the 3 tiers of government participating? I believe that it would be totally irresponsible to allocate the amount of money provided in the Bill without providing adequate safeguards as to its expenditure. I repeat that the Road Safety Committee has done a tremendous amount of work which should not be wasted.

I have one other point. In Victoria a policeman who goes to the scene of an accident records certain details. There are not 2 States which have similar documents. It is impossible to computerise the detail which it is necessary to examine in order to look intelligently at the questions concerning road safety because each State has a different format for taking details at the scene of an accident. The States have been trying to solve the problem for years. I do not think that the track performance is quite good enough. I believe that we ought to participate. It would be irresponsible to allocate amounts such as those contained in the Bill without the Australian Govern ment participating in determining how the money will be spent.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I do not propose to speak on all these amendments. I assure the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) that I have had a- very full breakfast and a reasonable night’s sleep and that 1 am not in a bad state of mind; nor was I last night when I made a very strong and impassioned speech to the Committee in support of what the Government is doing. I stated clearly my position and the Governments position on the amendments. I have received a number of telegrams - 13 all told. I congratulate the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) on the excellent work which he has done in organising six of them. I am giving him credit for it. I do not know whether I am doing him justice. I have received 10 telegrams, all - I underline ‘all’ - from country shires. There is none from a city council. Not one city council has expressed one word of opposition to or protest against our plan. Not one of the 10 shire councils, six of which are either in or adjacent to and linked to the electorate of Maranoa, has expressed condemnation or criticism of the Government’s action in requiring that the States and local government do certain things.

All are expressing disapproval and disappointment that their allocations could possibly be reduced. Let us get the picture very clear. I have received 10 telegrams expressing no objection to this alleged centralised control, but I believe recognising that this Government is endeavouring to do something positive and constructive about transport in the interests of Australians. I have received 3 telegrams which are objecting to centralised control. They come from Victoria. It is interesting that the final sentence of one of the telegrams reads:

Shire supports retention of existing supervisory procedures of Victorian Country Roads Board.

That shire council does not mind centralised government supervision of the work it is doing. Yesterday I agreed to meet a former president of the Australian Shires Association who comes from Queensland. I will not name the gentleman as I do not have his approval to do so. One of the members of the Country Party, at very short notice, asked me whether I would meet this gentleman. I told him I would and we fixed a time. The Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and I set aside some time and met and talked with him. We explained what the Government’s objectives were and what we were proposing to do. We said that more money should be available from the States to supplement the incomes of local government because this Government was not proposing under this legislation to require the States to make contributions to certain roads, namely, a national highway system. When we explain the situation to people similar to that gentleman there is a completely and totally different understanding.

I had the benefit of 12 years experience in local government before I entered this Parliament. I served for a period as Lord Mayor of the city of Newcastle and I know a little about the workings of the operations of local government. Each year local government bodies prepare a works list. I notice that the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti) is in the chamber. He is a former Senior Vice President of the New South Wales Local Government Association and I am certain that he will agree that it is customary each year for a council to prepare a works program. This has to be done. Otherwise councils would not be able to prepare their budgets. If councils do not prepare a works program they cannot determine what their estimates will be or what sort of rates they will have to levy. That is the position of local government organisations. What is wrong with their making those works programs available to us? We are a government which is keenly interested in making money available for the development of roads by local government and State governments and for the roads between our States which the national government has a responsibility to keep at a required standard for trade and commerce. Likewise we are interested in making money available for the development of roads so that at least we can get rid of some of the terrific bottlenecks that exist around our ports, both sea and air.

Honourable members know of the time that can be wasted in travelling from Sydney to its airport or from Brisbane to its airport. If honourable members intend travelling at around peak traffic time and intend catching the 5 o’clock plane out of Sydney or Brisbane the transport officers say that they had better be ready at least an hour before the plane is due to leave. If honourable members travel in the off-peak period it will take them from 15 to 20 minutes for the same journey. We want to provide more access. We want to be the people who decide. It is our responsibility to ensure that our air and sea ports can operate efficiently. Monstrous bottlenecks exist around Sydney. At present shipping companies are talking about imposing an 18 per cent surcharge on Australian freights that go through Sydney. One of the major contributing factors to these increased costs is the terrible road system around Sydney airport. This Government is aware of these facts. The Prime Minister wrote to the then Acting Premier, Sir Charles Cutler, seeking his approval for a joint study into a road system which will link with the new Botany Bay terminal.

Shipping freight costs in and out of Australia are the responsibility of this Government. If we have an inefficient road system, obviously the people concerned with the transportation of our commodities must be required and must be entitled to increase freight charges, particularly if we are responsible for contributing factors. These are facts that require the consideration of this Parliament. This is the basis of what we are doing as far as transport is concerned in Australia. Therefore I ask honourable members to note the telegrams of congratulations to the honourable member for Maranoa on his organisation of the protests but unfortunately they all came in at the one time.

The amendments proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland seek, in the main, to remove the powers proposed toy the Australian Government to approve programs of road works. The amendments also seek to remove any reference to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Northern Development, to frustrate our provisions for representation on State bodies concerned with policy and planning of roads, and to remove the delegation of some ministerial powers to members of the Australian Public Service.

Mr Nixon:

– I rise to take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I see no reason why the Minister, in the discussion on this limited clause, should foreshadow the full ambit of all the amendments or debate them. I think it is appropriate that the-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! I uphold the point of order. There is no point in discussing the matter further. The Minister must confine his remarks to the clause before the Committee, which is clause 3.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I was hoping to have the indulgence of the shadow Minister in the Opposition in putting my point of view. When I opened my remarks I explained that I was not anxious to speak on his 16 other amendments. If I could put a point of view to the honourable member at least it would clarify our attitude and what we were aiming to do, and it may facilitate and expedite the discussion. If the shadow Minister wishes to raise points of order that I must confine my remarks - I realise I was stretching my entitlement as to what I was to speak about - then I am afraid I accept his point of order.

Mr Nixon:

– Perhaps, with leave, I could clarify the matter. It is not my wish to stifle debate on this issue.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Nixon:

– It is not my wish to stifle debate in any sense. Clearly the Minister is attempting to lay down in one long speech his objection in total form to the amendments we will be moving to individual clauses. This is quite improper in the Committee stage. I am unable to make the specific points put to me by the State Governments and to bring them before the Committee as each clause is dealt with. Therefore I cannot agree to the Minister’s request.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The point of order raised by the honourable member for Gippsland was upheld.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I accept the situation, Mr Chairman. It puts me in the position now of having to be up and down all day like a yo-yo, something I was trying to avoid to enable other honourable members to participate in the debate. The proposals outlined in the Bill provide for the Government to be in a position to approve a program. The principal objective is that we are trying to deal with an overall transport policy whereby we are allocating money for sea transport, air transport, rail transport and road transport. The principle in these 2 clauses has already been accepted. It was accepted on Tuesday night of this week by the honourable member for Gippsland in the debate on the urban public transport legislation. We do have consultation and discussions with the State authorities at both a ministerial level where necessary and a departmental level. We are represented on State boards. They have all agreed to a planning board, which enables this Government to feed in the information, ideas and objectives that it has. They are prepared to accept those things. This is basically what these clauses provide. Therefore we cannot see any consistency on the part of the Opposition.

We have been accused of withholding finance from the States. I will demonstrate how malicious we are. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that by arrangement with the States and in anticipation of getting these 3 Bills through the Parliament, the Treasurer paid $2.5m to the South Australian Government on 24 July and $1.7m to the Queensland Government on 18 July. Therefore I suggest to the honourable member for Maranoa, to whom I am giving credit for organising these telegrams, that he should take note of this information and convey it to those shire councils to which he referred and the other shire councils which have expressed their disapproval in respect of road grants and which have suggested that there is a possibility they will have to lay off labour due to a lack of finance. The honourable member can inform those councils in Queensland that the State Government has already received money. I repeat that it received $1.7m on 18 July. An amount of $4,083,000 will be paid to Western Australia today. The sum of $500,000 will be paid to Tasmania today. It is interesting to note that I have protests from Victorian shire councils stating that they will have to lay off labour because they do not have money. Let me put the facts clearly. Neither New South Wales nor Victoria has yet applied to the Treasurer for any money. They know they can apply because they have been advised by the Treasurer that money will be available to them.

For those reasons it must be obvious to honourable members that clauses 4 and 5 of this legislation are important. They are the crux of the legislation. If we are going to put money into the States, then we have to have some say in regard to where it is to be spent and how it is to be spent - unless we return to the old system and give the States $1,1 26m over the next 3 years and have no say whatsoever in respect of where it is to be spent. That may have been the policy of the Opposition but it is not the policy of this Government. For those reasons we reject the amendments.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

- Mr Chairman, in reply to the Minister-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put -

That the Sub-clauses proposed to be omitted (Mr Nixon’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

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

Ayes .. 60

Noes . 47

Majority . .13

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Dr Gun:

– Mr Chairman, are you able to say whether the Opposition members who are absent today are drawing pay?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The question is: That clause 3 be agreed to.

Mr Nixon:

– The only reason members from this side of the House are absent is because of the bad management of the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Question put:

That clause 3 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 47

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 4. 4. (1) A Minister may notify a State the date before which a program of projects in respect of a period to which this section applies, being projects of a specified kind, is to be submitted to him for approval, and may, in the notice, inform the State that the program should include all the projects of that kind that are to be carried out by the State and by municipal, shire and other local authorities in that period.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– When the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) was addressing the Chair just a few minutes ago he said that telegrams had been received from only 13 councils and that ten of the telegrams came from the one area. I think that they were the figures he used. Perhaps he said that six of the telegrams came from the one area. He stated that no telegrams had been received from any city councils. The first point I make is that the reason for that is that no local council, almost until today, has been aware of the significance of this legislation. Nowhere in the Minister’s second reading speech are the people of Australia told what is contained in the clauses of the Bill. Local government has not been made aware of the fact that it will be totally beholden to this Government. This will apply not only in relation to the funds which local government receives from the Australian Government and expends. I agree entirely that the Minister should have the right to oversee the expenditure of Australian Government money through State and local government programs. We do not object to that.

We object most strongly to the Australian Government having the right to oversee and control programs financed with money raised by the local governments through rates paid by ratepayers and expended locally by the local government. A similar situation applies in relation to State taxes. There is no justification whatsoever for this Government to intrude so heavily into State government administration unless the States agree to the oversight of moneys raised by State taxes for State programs. Indeed, this principle strikes at a very important point. This Bill will prevent an elected State government which wants to go to the people with a policy of taxing motorists to raise money for roads from laying down its program. The whole of that program can be overruled by the Australian Government.

I think the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) who is a reasonably fair minded gentleman will agree with me when I again make the point that it is fair that the Australian Government oversee the expenditure of Australian Government money on roads in a local area. It is not fair nor is it right or proper that the Australian Government should control the expenditure of money raised by way of rates by local government or by way of taxes by State governments and thus control local government or State administration. I repeat that the reason why other local councils have not sent telegrams is that the Minister for Transport in his second reading speech deceived them on this point. There was not one point of explanation in the speech directed to this matter. It is quite unfair for the Minister to claim that we as an Opposition are trying to frustrate the activities of the Government. If the Minister wants this power let him call a meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and secure agreement from the State Ministers. He has not tried that. Earlier he talked about the need for co-operation. Last night the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) talked in terms of co-operation and how the Government wished to co-operate with the States. There is no sense of co-operation in this matter. This is a complete dictatorship from Canberra. This is nothing more or less than centralist control from Canberra.

In the last part of the Minister’s address he said that the Australian Government wanted to clear up the bottlenecks. That is just as easily done by administrative arrangements and in co-operation with the States through the use of Australian Government money as it is by directing the expenditure of State funds. This is a completely unwarranted intrusion into local government, both in the cities and the suburbs and also in the countryside. The second point I make is that there is a marked change in the level of expenditure available for local government in this year’s program as against last year’s. The total amount made available for the States in this year’s program is S239m. The total amount made available to the States in last year’s program and in the last Commonwealth Aid Roads Act was S279m. It is a complete deception to say that the difference is made up by the $400m which goes to the national highways program. The Minister should raise extra funds and stick to the report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in regard to the recommended allocation of funds. The Government makes great play of having these bodies report to and advise the Government. Then it totally ignores the reports.

In relation to the other point, it is completely improper and unfair for a Minister to delegate to a public servant the right to oversee the administrative control of State or local government programs. That strikes right at the heart of the Constitution. No Act of this Parliament should convey that power and privilege without first seeking the agreement either of the Australian people or of the elected State governments. The Australian Government is trying to subvert the Constitution and to seek power in another fashion. It is completely improper and quite wrong of the Minister to tackle this matter in such a fashion. Clause 4(1) is specific. It states:

A Minister may notify a State the date before which a program of projects in respect of a period to which this section applies, being projects of a specified kind, is to be submitted to him for approval, and may, in the notice, inform the State-

These are the important words - that the program should include all the projects of that kind that are to be carried out by the State and by municipal, shire and other local authorities in that period.

Sub-clauses (2), (3), (4) and (5) and, I think, (6) and (7) of clause 4 give the Australian Government power to control the use of its own funds. But it is within sub-clause (1) that the power is given to the Government to control the expenditure by a State government of funds raised by State taxation and expenditure by local government of funds it has raised through rates. It is to that point that we object. Whilst the local government authorities themselves are not aware of that provision, the State governments have sent me telegrams bearing heavily on that point. I have read those telegrams into the Hansard report. Anyone who turns to the Hansard report of my speech in the debate last night on the motion for the second reading of this Bill will see that the States have objected very strongly to the Australian Government taking over the control of not only the expenditure of its own funds but also the expenditure by the State governments of money they have derived from State taxes and by local government authorities of the money they have derived from local government rates. That is why I have made the point that this is the most centralised approach that has ever been taken in any piece of legislation ever to come before this Parliament. Never before in the history of the Parliament have we seen a piece of legislation that attempts to subvert the Constitution in such a fashion and attempts to give such control to the Australian Government. That is why the Opposition is opposed to this provision. I move:

Omit sub-clause (1).

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– An examination of this Bill will reveal that it is really a quite remarkable piece of legislation. Clause 4 of the Bill is the central point which establishes the whole direction in which the legislation runs.

Therefore, in speaking to clause 4, it is inevitable that one will need to describe in brief terms what the legislation purports to do. The Bill will have 3 main effects. Firstly, the Commonwealth, without detailed or expert know-how on the subject of road building requirements, will be able to pass judgment on and make decisions relating to all - I emphasise the word ‘all’ - road building projects undertaken by State and local government authorities. This Bill will enable the supervision of the construction of every piece of road pavement constructed in Australia. Whether it is to be constructed 1,000 miles away or 1,000 metres away, the Commonwealth will be able to supervise it in its entirety.

Secondly, the taxes and charges raised by elected State governments and local government authorities are to be spent in a way determined by Commonwealth Ministers or those Ministers’ delegates who, of course, by definition will be public servants. It will be a public servant in whom the authority to make the decision resides. The third purport of the Bill is to make a State responsible for anything which any road construction body may do but if any road constructing authority spends money on a project not approved by the Commonwealth Minister the State can in effect be fined by the Commonwealth.

Mr Wentworth:

– And how!

Mr SNEDDEN:

– And fined in a very serious way. But let us clarify this point in our minds. A State cannot be fined as an entity as though it is something separate. What happens is that the people who live in that State are fined. There are 3 levels of government in Australia. There is the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and local government authorities. Each individual Australian has, so to speak, 3 identities. He has his identity as he is regulated and as he participates and elects people to local government authorities and to State and Federal governments. To give supremacy to the Federal Government in this way is to take away from the individual part of his character. The individual must be able to say that he wants to have in local government man X, woman A, woman B or whoever it may be. If they do not perform he can then say: ‘I will vote them out of office’. The same applies to State governments and the Federal government. What is happening by reason of this legislation is that before any road can be built a plan has to be formulated by local government or by State government and then it has to be submitted to the czar. I ask honourable members to have a look at the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). Can they not imagine him as a bust on top of a piece of marble - Czar Jones of Newcastle, a magnificent profile. Czar Jones will be the person who decides-

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Mr Sch’oles)- Order! J suggest to the right honourable member, as I suggested it to the previous speaker in this debate, that it would be a good idea if we debated the Bill and not the personalities of people concerned from either side of the chamber.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Czar Jones will have the responsibility under the Act to decide whether a scheme will be approved.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will refer to the Minister for Transport as the Minister. If he continues to discuss personalities I will have no option but to sit him down.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– This is not personalities, I might-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Standing Orders do not permit an honourable member to refer to other honourable members in this chamber by name.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I will refer to him by his office. The Minister, for Transport will under the terms of this Bill be elevated to the role of czar. He will be able to determine where every piece of road pavement made in Australia goes. It would not matter whether it was outside this place, outside the State governments’ offices in the capital cities or outside the municipal office of any local government body. He is the one who will decide whether it can go ahead. The extraordinary thing that results from this is that a political party in a State can have an election and it can say to the people: ‘Elect us and we will do this’, outlining road making plans. The people of the State can approve that promise by electing that Party into government. Having elected it into government the new Cabinet or the returned Cabinet can, in accordance with its electoral mandate, formulate plans to build those roads. The czar created by this legislation can then say: ‘We refuse to allow you to do it’. It will not even be the czar who says that; it wil be his nominated delegate.

Mr Cohen:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Chairman, you have called the Leader of the Opposition to order 3 times for referring to the Minister for Transport as the czar.

Mr Hunt:

– But he was pointing at you.

Mr Cohen:

– Well, he is cross-eyed then because his finger was going–

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have called the Leader of the Opposition to order for referring to the Minister by name. Other adjectives, provided they are within the normal usage, are all right.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The effect of this legislation is that no single municipality in Australia can take a decision to buy such a simple thing as a road grader without the approval of the delegate of the Minister in Canberra. Government members might look out over the waters of Lake Burley Griffin but this Bill will not enable them to walk on that water. The Opposition ought not try to give the Government members the impression that we credit them with that amount of wisdom. We do not want to see compartmentalised decisions taken by nominated public servants, with a chain of policy command going right down through State governments and local governments. The essential question that the people of Australia are going to ask on this issue is: ‘Does a Second Division officer or a First Division officer of the Public Service in Canberra who may receive a high salary better represent us than do the councillors of the city of Box Hill, Camberwell, Burwood, Parramatta or Sturt?’

Will the people of these cities be better represented by a level 4 Second Division public servant in Canberra or will they be better represented by the people who they elect and whom they have the capacity to sack?

In a situation where there is a flood which results in the wash out of 6 bridges or a road washaway the local government body concerned will not be able to repair those bridges or the roadway until the Minister or his delegate agrees to this work being done. Under the terms of the Bill local government or State government has no right or authority to meet any emergency that arises. The Minister stood up and said: ‘We are determined to fix the road access to and from airports.’ But the people who determine where the funds will be spent are the State governments and the local governments. Despite this, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) asks the Minister whether there is to be an airport in his electorate, and if there is, where, and what will be the access to it by road.

The Minister is clothed with unusual wisdom according to the Act, but I can assure honourable members .that there is no Act of Parliament which will give him wisdom, and there is no Act of Parliament which will give a public servant understanding, compassion or humanity or make him answerable to the people of Australia through the ballot box. We had the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister saying that democracy is being white-anted. But what is white-anting it? This sort of legislation!

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr Snedden:

– I ask that I be permitted to take my second period.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As no one else has risen I call the right honourable gentleman.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– No piece of legislation can invest a Minister or a public servant with wisdom. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) can talk about white-anting democracy, but what are we here for? Last night we were told that we were to sit today. The Government could not make up its mind until 10.30 last night whether or not we would sit today. The Government was not able to say till a week ago whether a joint sitting would be held. The Government first said that it would be in the first 3 weeks. Talk about white-anting parliamentary procedures! There is no more real way of doing that than by giving more and more decisions to Ministers and more and more decisions to public servants. The Government wants to get this sitting over with. But why are we sitting today? Why are we sitting on the fourth day in this week? Why are we sitting early in the mornings? We are doing so because the Cabinet is frightened of Caucus. We are meeting at 10 a.m. on Tuesday and 12 noon on Wednesdays because the Government wants to cut down the amount of time that is available to members of Caucus to examine legislation.

I cannot believe that members of the Labor Party conscientiously and honestly want public servants to make these decisions. If this happens it will not be long before tha people in their electorates and municipalities start to realise that their elected officials no longer have responsibility. If we are to change the system and concentrate power in Canberra let us do it by way of referendum. Let us put in a referendum, to the people, the simple question: ‘Are you in favour of giving the Commonwealth Parliament the right to pass legislation which removes policy decisions from local government and State government bodies?’ But what has the Government done? It uses the knuckleduster - that is the sort of fight this is - because it has the power of the purse. This Government will strangle other governments and, in strangling those governments, put all the power here in Canberra. Well, I suppose that for a while people will accept that that is the way things are going because they do not see any great problems in it at the moment. But, as the process continues, local government bodies will cease to have a role to play in this country.

We can no longer accept this proposal. We have decided to fight it. We will not be intimidated by the Minister for Transport. If the legislation is passed, it will be an attempt to convert the Minister into a man with the powers of Caesar. But we will fight this proposal all the way down the line. We will not be intimidated. You will remember, Mr Chairman, that last week we took the decision that we would forgo the proposed rise in our parliamentary salaries. The Prime Minister tried to intimidate us into abandoning our decision by saying: ‘All in, all out, one in, one out’.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman will discuss the Bill before the Committee, not the general economic conditions or any matters which have passed through the Parliament. He is ranging very wide of the Bill.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I was indicating that last week there was an attempt to intimidate us, and we would not be intimidated. This week-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman is not debating the clause before the Committee. He is talking about general events which have taken place in the Parliament and which have nothing to do with this clause.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– This week there is an attempt to intimidate us by the Minister for Transport saying: ‘If you proceed with your amendments, no money at all will be provided’. All right. If the situation comes to that, the people will have to judge whether the sort of government that they want is one that seeks to intimidate by threatening the withdrawal of money simply because it wants to make the decisions itself. Are the Australian people to be treated as though they have no sense, no understanding and no will to make their own decisions? That is what the Minister is pro posing to do by this legislation. If no money is to be provided, let this be understood: We support the provision of the money proposed to be allocated by this legislation. We support also the right of the State governments and local governments to be involved in decision taking. We do not support the arrogation of the right to take all decisions in these matters to one Minister - the Minister for Transport - or his delegate. Additionally, the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) must be satisfied as to the purpose for which funds are allocated. They could have a row. We can imagine them disagreeing for months. No money would be provided because of their disagreement.

Let the issues be clear. The issues are these: Is there to be a concentration of all decision making power in the Minister for Transport and his delegate, or is there to be a continuation of the involvement of State and local government bodies in that process? The matter is as simple as that.

Mr Ruddock:

– A partnership.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, a partnership, as mentioned by the honourable member for Parramatta. Australia is crying out for leadership and for co-operation, not confrontation. But what it is being offered by the Minister for Transport in confrontation. If the game is to be played in this way, I regret it. But, if it must be played in this way, we will have to fight. If we really want to see the country benefitted, the way to achieve that result is to make the money available in a fully co-operative manner.

The Minister for Transport can amend this legislation very easily by proposing that the determination of the totality of road making plans be separated out into the national highways - we started the research on that aspect when we were in government; so of course we support it now - and then the urban arterial roads and urban local roads and the rural arterial roads and rural local roads for which grants are to be available. There is no reason why the Government should not say to local government bodies with respect to certain roads: ‘You look after these. We are the national Government. We have national interests. We want to co-operate with you in these national interests’. But the proposal that we have before us is that the Minister for Transport will be responsible for determining, for example, whether the street outside my house can be built by the local government body. It is an absurd proposition; that has only to be stated to be understood. I make an appeal to the Minister, in the interests of achieving the passage of this Bill in a sensible form. The Minister should not say aggressively: ‘You have to do it my way or it is “All out”.’ The Minister does not possess all wisdom and nor does his delegate possess all wisdom. Wisdom is spread. The quality of democracy is that power is spread between Commonwealth Government, State governments, local government bodies and their respective employees.

The Government and the Opposition have a common objective; that is to provide the money for road improvement and to do the job for everybody. I ask the Minister: Please, change your attitude. He will receive total cooperation from the Opposition if he changes his attitude, and the Australian people will benefit from it. Then he will be known as a benefactor and not, as he is likely to be known, as the protector of a bureaucratic inter.ferer who has no understanding of what is in the best interests of the people of Australia.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– Mr Chairman, I would like to correct one statement I made in relation to the previous clause. I said then that New South Wales had not applied for any grants in advance. Treasury has since advised me that New South Wales has applied. I just want to make that point clear. It was interesting to listen to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). He might at least remain in the chamber for a moment.

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– He is.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– He is now in the chamber.

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– You want to run everybody’s life. ‘

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– For heavens sake, shut up.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Chairman, 1 take a point of order. Surely what the honourable gentleman has just said is unparliamentary. He said: ‘For heavens sake, shut up.’ Can one imagine the authority in this Bill in the charge of a man who can act like that in the Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– We have just listened to a speech by the right honourable

Leader of the Opposition - I must not forget to say ‘right honourable’ - who attempted to rile me, to malign me, by calling me a czar, a commissar and God knows what. When I was a little boy that would really have hurt me. I do not think that he has ever grown out of the stage of being a little boy and calling people names. So if you would, Billy, please come in here and act like a man.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I asked the Leader of the Opposition not to refer to honourable members by name. I suggest that the Minister should not do so.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I hope that the right honourable Leader of the Opposition will grow up, stop playing childish pranks, calling people names, poking out his tongue and throwing stones. I do not take any notice of it. So let us get on and deal with the facts of the Bill. These grants are made under section 96 of the Constitution. There is nothing original about that. Under section 96 the Australian Government requires the State government or local government authority to do certain things. When honourable members opposite were in government time and time again they made grants under section 96 and laid down the conditions under which that money was allocated. That is all the Government is doing in this case. It is laying down conditions under which it is prepared to make grants available to the States. There is nothing original about that.

The Bill says that the Minister may notify the States, and then it goes on. I do not propose to waste time reading the Bill. The facts are that the Government may require tho States to do certain things. It may require them to make certain information available to the Minister. I have the power to delegate certain authority to officers in my Department. Why do not honourable members opposite learn what is happening in regard to roads today and just what the procedures are? The power to delegate authority which is contained in this Bill is no different from that under which authority ? conferred on any road authority, whether it be a Department of Main Roads, a Main Roads Board, a Country Roads Board or some other such thing. Power is delegated to all these bodies. It is the customary thing. I do not want to spend the rest of my time as Minister signing letters so that things can be done, a road can be constructed, a piece of equipment can be bought or something like that.

Delegation of power is the standard procedure in a public service. We are dealing with responsible men to whom power has been delegated. This is being done every day of the week by State governments and local government authorities. What is so terrible about that? A lot of honourable members opposite have had experience in local government. How many of them have objected to that procedure? According to them it is good for a State government or for a local government but it is wrong for an Australian Government. Duplication was allowed, approved, authorised by the former Government. When the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) was Minister for Shipping and Transport he gave authority to public servants to approve single voyage permits. So did his predecessor. In fact, if I remember rightly, this procedure carried over from the time the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was Minister for Shipping and Transport until my time as Minister. I had to cancel the authorisation that these former Ministers had given to public servants. Who are the regional directors in Victoria, New South Wales and the other States who had the authority? Did they abuse it? Silence is the stern reply. Honourable members opposite know full well that those men did not abuse it and that they will not abuse any authority entrusted to them under this proposal any more than will public servants who have been delegated power by a State government or a local government authority. I have confidence in those men. I know that my predecessor as Minister likewise had confidence in people, because the facts are that he delegated authority to other people. We are still delegating power to public servants to approve things. There is nothing original in the question of delegating power.

Under this Bill S 1,1 15m is to be allocated to the States compared with an allocation of $803m for the last 3 years of the 1969-1974 Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement. I ask honourable members to work it out.

Mr Hodges:

– What about inflation?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– What did the former Government do about inflation? It did nothing. It made an allocation for 5 yeans and did not increase one year’s allocation to cope with the inflation that existed then. Therefore do not talk to me about what the former Government did about inflation. It did nothing. It did not increase its allocations under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement. We have decided what the allocation of money will be; that is perfectly true. It is our responsibility to do that. It is our responsibility to advise the States in advance what the allocation will be for 3 years, not for 5 years, as the previous Government did. We have cut back to 3 years the period which an allocation is to cover at the request of the States. A review will be made of the position in 18 months time so we will then have a roll-over program year after year. The facts are that more money is being provided this year. We are requiring the States to do certain things but those things are in conformity with the overall policies and plans of this Government to upgroads roads and transport as a whole.

I ask honourable members opposite to examine the roads of this country which are the results of their policies. They will see the mess the roads are in today. Look at the deplorable condition of the various highways, for instance, the Bruce Highway in Queensland. The Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) can outline what the condition of that road is - the Redex trial highway, the highway of which the Opposition is so proud, the highway in relation to which the Opposition wants the States to retain the authority to determine how much money should be spent. The present Government will put money into this highway and will make it a decent road. Hundreds of people lose their lives in this country every year because of the deplorable condition of roads. Our objective is to see that the condition of roads does not cause loss of life. If the members of the Opposition are opposed to the saving of lives by building better roads, let them vote against the amendment, but that will not do them any good.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I refer to clause 4 and seek leave to have amendments Nos. 3 to 7 inclusive considered cognately.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I accept that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is granted.

Mr NIXON:

– I move:

These amendments are intended to correct a situation which has arisen for some peculiar reason unknown either to the Parliament or the people outside. A typical example is to be found in sub-clause (3). It reads:

For the purposes of this Act, the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development and after consultation with the appropriate Minister of a State . . .

Sub-clause. (4) states quite the reverse:

The Minister for State for Urban and Regional Development, with the concurrence of the Minister . . .

Sub-clause (5) reads:

The Minister of State for Northern Development, with the concurrence of the Minister . . .

And so it goes on right through the subclauses.

We believe that only one Minister ought to be responsible and that any administrative arrangements that Minister wants to make with the Minister for Urban and Regional Development are a matter for the Federal Government in the Cabinet room or wherever else it deals; it is not a matter to be enshrined in this legislation. Nobody should tell me that the fights between the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the Department of Transport must be enshrined in legislation so that the States do not know where the buck finally settles. These sub-clauses raise the question of consultations with the Minister for Transport or his delegate, perhaps a second division officer. That officer would go across to the Department of Urban and Regional Development to seek concurrence and the officer would say: ‘I have to raise this with the Minister’. So we have one Minister in one department talking to a second division officer in the other department. How on earth is any State government or any local government body to get resolution of the questions they raise? There is no point in enshrining in legislation the fights between power hungry departments. A simple solution, and a clear instruction for the States and local government bodies, would be for them to be able to come straight to the responsible Minister. We respect the position of the Minister for Transport so far as this Bill is concerned. We do not want it diluted by involving a whole catalogue of other Ministers.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I do,

Mr NIXON:

– It is not a matter of what the Minister wants. It is a matter of what we think is best ‘for the States and the local government bodies who have to deal with the problems. So we think this provision ought to be removed.

I want to make one other point. There is simply no parallel between a Minister for Transport or his delegate granting a single voyage permit for a ship to sail up the coast and, as under this Bill, a Minister for Transport giving power to a delegate to override the authorities of other constitutional governments, either State or local. The case the Minister used is not analogous in any sense at all. So to talk as he did when he was on his feet previously is quite erroneous. For these reasons, I have moved the amendments.

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

– I want to reply on behalf of both the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) and myself. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), who was a Minister in the LiberalCountry Party Government, is apparently completely unaware of his own Government’s legislation which has been in operation since 1949. What he is now arguing against is what his own Government had done since 1949. I refer to the beef roads agreement which had its genesis in the States Grants (Encouragement of Meat Production) Act of 1949 and which has extended through to the current beef roads program completed on 30 June. The Treasurer of the Commonwealth was, of course, involved, but it was specifically provided that the Minister for National Development, as he was then known, was responsible for the administrative arrangements. The 1968 legislation is specific. It refers to the Minister for National Development with respect to beef roads, not the Minister for Transport.

Previous legislation specifically mentions the Treasurer in respect of certain areas but with regard to roads the appropriate Minister is specified. What the honourable member for Gippsland has said completely ignores legislation which he supported and which previous Liberal-Country Party governments have fol- lowed since 1949. The honourable member seeks to dismember or abolish the specialised divisions set up in the Department of Urban and Regional Affairs and in my own Department. The Department of Northern Development is especially concerned with beef roads which are an entirely different proposition from highways. The same principle applies to various aspects of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. These are specialised programs. You do not simply build beef roads from point A to point B. In working out where to build beef roads you pay heed to the location of the cattle industry and to land classification. You also have regard to rates of current turn-off of cattle and estimates of potential turn-off. You must pay regard to what will result from development.

In association with State governments and Australian government agencies actual road programs are determined. An overall plan is formulated. That overall plan becomes the responsibility of the Minister for Transport. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development and I work within that plan in our respective departments. Has the honourable member for Gippsland heard any objections from the State governments about the way this has worked with respect to beef road proposals? Of course not.

Mr Nixon:

– The parallel is not the same. You are talking of financial control which is entirely different.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable member is talking about this clause. What he wants to do is omit reference to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Northern Development. By so doing we would then get some half-baked plan worked out in bits and pieces. This has not been the situation in legislation supported by previous governments since 1949. Let us not have any nonsense about this matter. What the honourable member is trying to do, as the Minister for Transport has pointed out simply, is to wreck the smooth operations that have existed for many years, even under governments he supported, and affect the co-operation that has existed between the States and the Commonwealth in certain areas. The proposal has worked with beef roads; it will work with the involvement of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Transport. For that reason the amendment is opposed. The system has worked in the past and previous governments have endorsed it.

I go a step further. The honourable member for Gippsland said that the Australian Government can play a positive part in the determination of roads. This has always been the position with beef roads. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Department of National Development in the past have all worked with the States in formulating plans, but it has been the Australian Government which has, in fact, determined those plans. This situation has been accepted by Western Australia, irrespective of what political party has been in power there; by Queensland, irrespective of what political party has been in power there; and, of course, by the Northern Territory which is Australian government territory. This system has worked in the past and it will work in the future.

Mr NIXON (Gippsland)- A personal explanation

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member can speak in the debate.

Mr NIXON:

– If I try to speak in the debate I will probably be gagged. But I have been misrepresented, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! You claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NIXON:

– Yes. I am not objecting, nor is the Opposition objecting, to the Department of Urban and Regional Development or the Department of Northern Development using their special expertise in relation to this Bill; that is not the point at all. The point I am making is that there is no need to enshrine them in the legislation. Let that be a matter for co-operation between the various departments outside of the legislation. It is quite a different point entirely to involve the Treasury which deals with financial questions

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable gentleman continues he will be debating the question and I will have to put him down as having spoken on the question.

Mr NIXON:

– Then let me speak on the question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that the honourable member should speak on the question.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I will just finish the point I was making. There is a complete difference between Treasury with its financial interests and control and the point that we were making in the debate.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Purposes for which financial assistance may be applied)

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I believe that we will be seeking to postpone clause 6 because it is a very complex clause. It contains a number of sub-clauses of considerable importance. If one deals specifically with the individual sub-clauses, one finds in sub-clause (3) reference to an approved program of projects for a certain year having to be submitted and to the fact that the grants for construction and maintenance of rural local roads should be made in accordance with the approved program of projects for that year. The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, in its own report, specifically recommended against such a clause when it said that grants for rural local roads should not be subject to an approved program of projects. As considerable amendment is required in relation to each of the sub-clauses of clause 6, we will be seeking to postpone consideration of this clause so that further amendments can be brought forward.

In this debate there has been considerable misrepresentation of the Government’s position. During the debate honourable members have spoken about the need for participation by, and the need for the involvement of, State governments and local governments, yet when we get down to the real issues we find that they were summed up by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). Earlier in the debate he said: ‘We want to be the people who will decide in relation to all expenditure, all proposals and all road developments’. I am sorry that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has left the chamber because one can understand what I have just said from the very nature of the remarks that he made to me a little earlier and of the remarks that he has made in other places, quite publicly when he has referred to the North Western Distributor. What he says, knowing of course that 1 agree that the proposition that this particular road proposal is most undesirable, is: ‘How else will we be able to stop this proposal unless I and, presumably, the Minister for Transport have this power?’ That is the proposition that he puts. I reject that sort of proposition not because I do not want to stop that expressway proposal but because I believe that the people who have the responsibility of making that decision are the New South Wales Government, the government elected by the people of New South Wales. For that reason I do not want to see a transfer of power simply to achieve even what I believe to bea desirable objective.

There is a great deal of confusion on the other side of the House. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) said that the Government was putting forward this proposition in order to stop freeway proposals. Yet in the second reading speech the Minister for Transport refers to a special report. He said in that speech: . . in response to a request by my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), identified many advantages of freeways over heavily loaded arterial roads. These advantages include very significant reductions in road accidents, decreases

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! When the Committee was considering clause 1 last night I asked the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen)to refrain from making a speech similar to the one that the honourable member is now making. I ask the honourable member to do the same.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I appreciate that, Mr Chairman. 1 want to take this a little further, not along the lines that I was pursuing when you called me to order but in relation to comments made today by the Minister in relation to this question of power. Power is what is referred to in the clause to which I propose to move the amendment which has been foreshadowed. We are talking about the transfer ofthat power from the State Government which has the responsibility at the moment, to the Federal Government. The only justification that the Minister gave for this action- it is the only justification I have heard - was related to the difficulty that we as honourable mem bers have in reaching the Sydney International Airport.

I would like to draw his attention, as I have done quite often throughout this debate, to the Sydney Area Transportation Study.I know that the Minister complained that he did not receive the Study as early as he might have, but I am sure that he has now had an opportunity to consider it in some detail. The corridor analysis indicates that 6 major transport corridors in Sydney require examination. They are the western, south-western, north-western, Manly-Warringah, the southern and northern suburbs corridors. The road to the Sydney International Airport falls within only a small ambit of the southern corridor. Yet the whole change of emphasis in our roads program to deal with the problems in the Botany area presupposes that we ought to neglect these other corridors, these other areas, where road programs are required. I am not saying that there are not proposals that ought to be advanced for the Botany area, but that proposals cannot be looked at to the total exclusion of the whole of the City of Sydney. We may well be influenced by our own concerns as to whether it is easy to get in and out of an airport, taking into consideration whether freight for which we might be responsible is affected by road proposals. But why should we assume a total responsibility for regulating State expenditure simply to achieve responsibility in those areas in relation to which we have to act at least to fulfil our responsibility.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. How much longer is the honourable member for Parramatta going to romance here on this issue. Clause 6 does not cover any of the matters about which the honourable member is talking.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that the Minister is wrong in this. Sub-clause (5) of clause 6 provides for the allocation of moneys by the States for the construction of urban arterial roads. I think the honourable gentleman is talking to that sub-clause.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be put.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I want formally to oppose the motion.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– The motion has been moved. The honourable member is out of order in speaking after the motion has been moved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 10 (Statements of expenditure, etc., to be furnished.)

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 10 (1) (c) which states:

If the Treasurer so directs, as soon as practicable after such date as the Treasurer specifies, a statement in writing setting out such other information in relation to amounts expended or set aside for expenditure by the State on road works or in relation to expenditure by a municipal, shire or other local authority on road works, as the Treasurer specifies.

This clause seeks to give the Treasurer the power to write to any local government body in Australia and demand from it, at any time he chooses, detailed information regarding roadwork expenditure in that local government authority area. The whole clause means that if there is some internal upset in a shire, such as flood, fire or famine, and there is some unexpected expenditure, the information is sent to the Federal Treasurer. If at the end of the year the expenditure does not total the allocation, because of the unexpected flood, the shire will probably not get any of the next year’s road funds. I have never seen a better example of attempted bureaucratic control than to ask local government bodies to be responsible to the Federal Treasurer. It is complete nonsense. I have never known such a proposal. It seeks to interfere in the expenditure of every dollar raised by local government rates, paid for by local ratepapers. The Federal Treasurer wants to have a say in the matter. He wants to know the full program, including the expenditure program, of such a body. There is no need for the provision.

As in all the other cases, there is not one word of explanation in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) why such a provision is necessary. The second reading speech does not give any information on any of these points in relation to which we have moved amendments. The second reading speech on this Bill could have clarified many matters. People outside the Parliament could be of the view that the Bill is a quite harmless one, in comparison with what they have been used to, when in point of fact it is completely different from the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. The second reading speech does not inform the people of Australia on that point. This is another example of not one local government authority being notified of this provision. They must give an explanation to the Federal Treasurer on every dollar they spend on road making or on bridge making. If they paint a white strip down the middle of a road, they must tell the Treasurer. If they erect a road safety sign, they must tell the Federal Treasurer and tell him how much it cost. I have never known such pettyfogging bureaucracy. The Minister has given no reason for it and no justification for it. Therefore, we oppose the clause.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Special conditions as to repayments.)

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I draw the Committee’s attention specifically, to save time, to the last three or four lines of clause 11, which state: . . local authority has, in the year to which the program applies, expended any moneys on the carrying out of projects of that kind that were not included in the program of projects of that kind approved in respect of the State.

As I understand it, this section implies that if by chance a local government body were to expend money without the knowledge of the State Government the Federal Minister could seek a recovery of the money expended on that program.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr NIXON:

– Before the sitting of the House was suspended for lunch I was making the point that what clause 11 refers to-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 40

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (Conditions as to repayment).

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– This clause proposes to seek from the States- (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr NIXON:

– I am going to be gagged again.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Nixon:

– There has been no debate on any of these-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat.

Mr Nixon:

– The second reading speech did not explain the clause-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat.

Mr Nixon:

– It is dictatorship.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Question put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 45

Majority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I have an amendment relating to clause15 which reads:

  1. A Minister referred to in section 4 may, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument or delegation, by writing under his hand delegate to an officer of the Australian Public Service any of his powers under that section.
  2. A power so delegated may be exercised in accordance with the instrument of delegation.
  3. A delegate of a Minister is, in the exercise of his powers under this Act. subject to the directions of the Minister.
  4. A delegation under this section is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise of a power by a Minister.

Clause 15 of the Bill provides for the Minister to delegate his authority. I move:

Omit the clause.

This clause is very much the centre of the whole problem with this legislation in that it gives the Federal Minister the right to delegate to any officer in his department the authority to override decisions taken by elected State governments or elected local government bodies. I register the Opposition’s objection to that and will seek to move against it. The difficulty with the previous amendment was that on all matters that related to Australian Government representation on State bodies the Australian Government could dictate to the States what bodies ought to be formed in respect of the planning and administration of their road systems. Also the Australian Government could force representation on anybody if it so desired. We object to both those provisions. Because of the exigencies of time I do not press the debate any further at this time but I want the local government bodies to know full well what the Australian Government has planned for them in this legislation.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

-I will speak briefly. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) is concerned about the delegation of power. I give a simple explanation of delegation of power and how it works and how it is so evil to delegate power to Australian public servants. Today the Minister for the Northern Territory and Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) and I made an announcement following representations made to us by the Queensland Commissioner of Main Roads that we do something about the Burke Highway. We have issued a statement today to the effect that we are prepared to accept full responsibility for the Burke Highway. This decision was made by us on the basis of representations of a Queensland public servant. How evil this provision is!

Amendment negatived.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1083

QUESTION

DIVISION BELLS

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

- Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the Chair to raise a question about the ringing of the division bells this morning. At the time I happened to be in the office of Senator Wheeldon, the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I know my hearing is not quite as acute as it may have been in days gone by, but I heard no bells whatsoever. But when I returned to my own office on this side of the building I was informed that I had missed 2 divisions. I would be glad if an inquiry could be made to see whether on occasions like this when the Senate is not sitting the bells could still be rung in the various offices of the Parliament on the other side of the building as well as on this side.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest to the honourable member that he should report that matter to the Usher of the Black Rod to check whether the bells were in working condition and, if not, to have the matter rectified.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I also seek the indulgence of the Chair to make a similar plea. I was in the Library basement earlier and I apparently missed a division because I did not hear the bells. Could a similar check be made in that place?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Serjeant-at-Arms has heard the honourable member’s remarks and will certainly make a report on the matter.

page 1084

NATIONAL ROADS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 July (vide page 382), on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I have 5 amendments which refer to clauses 4, 6 and 1 5, which read in part:

Clause 4.

  1. The Minister may declare a road in a State that facilitates, or a proposed road in a State, that would, if constructed, facilitate trade and commerce, or the development of trade and commerce, with other countries to be an export road for the purposes of this Act, and may revoke or vary such a declaration.
  2. The Minister may declare a road in a State that facilitates, or a proposed road in a State that would, if constructed, facilitate, trade and commerce, or the development of trade and commerce, among the States to be a major commercial road for the purposes of this Act, and may revoke or vary such a declaration.

Clause 6.

  1. The Minister shall not approve a program that includes a project by way of the construction or maintenance of a part of a national road -

    1. in the parts of the States of New South Wales and Victoria that constitute the AlburyWodonga Area for the purposes of the Albury-Wodonga Area Development Agreement a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1974; or
    2. in a place declared by the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development, with the concurrence for the Minister, to be a growth centre for the purposes of this Act, unless the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development or an officer authorized by that Minister has concurred in the inclusion of the project in the program.

  2. The Minister may approve particulars of a project that is, or is intended to be, included, in a program referred to in sub-section (2) or (5).

Clause 15.

  1. The Minister may, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing under his hand, delegate to an officer of the Australian Public Service any of his powers under sections 5 and 6.
  2. A power so delegated may be exercised by the delegate in accordance with the instrument of delegation.
  3. A delegate is, in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his functions under this Act, subject to the directions of the Minister.
  4. A delegation under this section is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise of a power by the Minister.

I seek leave to move all 5 amendments together.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr NIXON:

– I move:

The first objection that the Opposition has to the National Roads Bill relates to clause 4 (3). The Opposition holds the view that clause ought to contain the words ‘the Minister may enter into an agreement with a State to declare a road’. The clause at present provides quite an open cheque. Under this provision the Minister, without any reference to the State, can declare any road he likes to be a national highway. He can frustrate the planning of any of the States or local government authorities in this way. Because the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) claims that he likes to work in co-operation with the States, there should be no difficulty whatsoever in his being able to enter into an agreement with a State to declare a road to be a national highway. I think that it is a very important point to remember in regard to State and local governments. This move represents a complete contradiction of the Constitution in which the power lies. It is subverting the Constitution and it is quite wrong in principle. For that reason, the Opposition opposes the clause.

The second amendment is to clause 4 (4). In this case, the Minister may declare a road in a State that would, if constructed, facilitate trade and commerce or the development of trade and commerce amongst the States to be a major commercial road. We agree that the Commonwealth should be able so to construct a road or take over a road for that purpose. We are fully in agreement with that principle. What we object to is the arbitrary way in which the Commonwealth can do this without any guarantees whatsoever to the States that anything will be done along the lines that the States or local government bodies themselves request. There again, we have moved an amendment to provide that the Minister may enter into an agreement with a State. Surely that is not asking too much.

The next clause to which we take objection is clause 6 (6). I have moved the amendment which has been circulated to this clause to omit paragraph (b) and the words ‘or an officer authorised by that Minister’. Paragraph (b) and the remainder of the clause state: in a place declared by the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development, with the concurrence of the Minister, to be a growth centre for the purposes of this Act, unless the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development or an officer authorized by that Minister has concurred in the inclusion of the project in the program.

We believe that the words ‘or an officer authorised by that Minister’, should be struck out of the last part and also that paragraph (b) should also be struck out. I do not believe that the Minister for Urban and Regional Develop- ment (Mr Uren) has any right to delegate an officer who will then have the right to override elected State governments and elected local government bodies. We are totally opposed to that concept. We heard the Minister for Transport who is at the table use the analogy of giving a ship a single voyage permit. Such action is not in contradiction of any Commonwealth, State or local government laws. That is not a fair analogy. In this case a delegated officer can overrule the wishes of an elected State government or a democratically elected local government body. For those reasons, I have moved the amendment to that clause.

The final amendment deals with clause 15. I seek to omit clause 15 (1), (2), (3) and (4). Once again, this clause gives the Minister a power to delegate authority to any officer of his Department. I repeat that such an officer can override the wishes of a fully and democratically elected State government or local government body. This is quite improper. The Minister himself should answer any specific correspondence from State governments or local government bodies. It is quite wrong in principle for a delegated officer to be able to override ministers of a State parliament or local government officers. For those reasons, 1 have moved the amendments, copies of which have been circulated, to those clauses.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NewcastleMinister for Transport · ALP

– This Bill involves the old argument of whether the Australian Government should accept responsibility firstly, for a national highway system. There is only one thing wrong with what has been said. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) wants us to reach agreement with the States. Let me say firstly that there will be continuing discussion with the States on the locations of national highways-

Mr Hunt:

– But it is not just national highways.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I ask the honourable member to let me finish. If I may say so, we are dealing with national highways. We will be holding discussions with the States. Already I have given the honourable member 2 examples. The first one involves the suggestion we are making for a new highway which will come through from Collector close to Canberra and go on to Tumut. This is an Australian government project. We will be paying the full cost of it. We will co-operate with the State and we are seeking its joint consultation. The other project which I outlined earlier is the access road to Botany Bay. There will be joint consultation. We are prepared to go on doing this. So it is a question of whether we should have the right to make the final decision. If the States want to do so, they can object. If I am required to reach an agreement with the States and if they object so that we cannot get agreement, we can run into all sorts of loopholes. There can be gaps in highway development. We want to get away from that. We are prepared to accept our responsibility by deciding where the roads shall go. We are prepared to talk to the States about the matter. We are not prepared to be tied down.

Once again we come back to the old question of delegation of powers. We are doing what has been done in every Act as far as roads are concerned in every State. In all States the Minister does not retain total power. He has the right at any point to intervene and to make decisions but, in the main, he delegates power. As I said a moment ago, I have here a Press release which the Minister for Northern Development and myself released today. It is about representations made to this Government by the Queensland Commissioner for Main Roads. That is delegated power. The Queensland Minister did not write to us. His Commissioner for Main Roads did. The same situation applies to all other States. There is nothing sinister, objectionable or obnoxious about this as far as I am concerned. When a Minister wants to intervene he is at liberty to do so. I ask honourable members to imagine for a moment what would happen if a member of my Department tried to ride roughshod over some State Minister. Do honourable members not think that that Minister would immediately make representations to me or whoever may be the Minister for Transport claiming that his State was getting a rough deal? So at any time any delegated power is abused it is always subject to cancellation at a moment’s notice if a Minister intervenes. Again I give an example of delegated power. What are the delegated powers and responsibilities of the Director-General of Civil Aviation? My God, he really has powers delegated to him which allow him to walk on Lake Burley Griffin.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1086

TRANSPORT (PLANNING AND RESEARCH) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 July (vide page 387), on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Charles Jones) - by leave - proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I will detain the House for only a few moments. It does seem to me that one could take the best possible view of the motive of the Government in this matter. Ail I can say is that the road to Canberra, like the road to hell, is so very often paved with good intentions. The protestations of the Government in regard to this matter-

Mr Charles Jones:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are not going to pave it with good intentions; we are going to use good hard aggregate and tar.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– All I wish to say is that planning and research certainly are needed. For example. I think that some of the announced policies perhaps not of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) but of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) have been misplaced. I hope that they will be revised on the basis of the more mature consideration which this organisation can perhaps give to it.

I come back in particular to the things that have been said about the city of Sydney and freeway systems. I agree with the principles that, firstly, we should have more public transport and more people should use public transport, and secondly, that freeways should not necessarily be radial to the cities. But when one looks at Sydney one must realise that there is no possibility of getting a freeway on the eastern side because that is all sea. Indeed, the nearest freeway to the east must pass over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and thus go through the city. For that reason there needs to be a different kind of approach to the traffic problems in Sydney and one that is very different from that which the Minister for Urban and Regional Development has put forward in this House. It does seem to me that although he has been moved with excellent intentions the conclusions he has come to are not always sensible. I hope that the organisation which will be set up under this Bill will be able to correct a few of those misapprehensions for him.

There is only one other point that I wish to make. I hope that this organisation will not be made a vehicle of more and more centralisation in Canberra. It is all very well to say - I agree with the Minister to this extent - that there should be an overall plan in regard not only to roads but also to the coordination of the various forms of transport. I believe that that is right and proper. But I disagree with the approach of the Government in 2 respects. Firstly, it wants to control not general principles but details. As I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) pointed out this morning, one cannot always be sure about emergencies which might crop up - the unexpected. There has to be more flexibility. The other point is that Canberra should not always be issuing instructions to the States on matters of detail. We are setting up under the series of Bills which we have been considering this afternoon machinery which will enable an evil-intentioned Minister to control and dominate the States in all their transport details. I am not saying that the present Minister for Transport is evil-intentioned; it would be quite unparliamentary for me to do so and, of course, I have no intention of being tempted to transgress the protocols of the Parliament. I go along with the Government in that I believe that there should be some overall Australian plan not only in regard, as I said earlier, to each particular form of transport but also in regard to the co-ordination of all of them. I do not go along with the Government when it creates a machinery which will enable it to control every detail, issue orders and become a kind of dominating authority. As I have said, the road to Canberra is paved with what the Minister likes to describe as good intentions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1087

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– by leave - I move:

  1. That the following matter be referred to the Joint Committee on Prices: Imports in respect of which evidence is presented to the Committee that the Australian dollar price to consumers or users failed to respond to reductions in landed costs following the revaluation of the Australian dollar in December 1972 or following other relevant currency changes in 1973, with particular reference to those imports having a significant effect on domestic costs and prices.
  2. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.

I might explain, Mr Speaker, that this matter was referred to the Joint Committee on Prices on 3 May 1973, and, after the prorogation of the first session of the Twenty-eighth Parliament, referred again on 7 March 1974. Following its re-establishment in this Parliament, the Committee has requested that the matter be referred again to permit it to complete its inquiries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1087

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

page 1087

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 1087

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed from 1 August (vide page 1005), on motion by Mr Young:

That the following Address in Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to; May it please Your Excellency:

We, the House of Representatives of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to express our thanks for the Speech which His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Paul Hasluck, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.St.J., as Governor-General, was pleased to address to Parliament.

Upon which Mr Anthony had moved by way of amendment:

That the following words be added to the Address: ‘but the House of Representatives is of the opinion that-

the Government is unable to hande the economic problems that confront Australia because its policies of -

deliberately creating an intolerable rate of inflation;

creating unemployment and

applying a credit squeeze with high interest rates have led to distressing social and economic dislocation and

the Government is to be condemned for its continued confrontation with the State Governments and the undermining of their rights and responsibilities’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Petrie. I remind honourable members that this is a maiden speech and I ask them to extend the usual courtesies to the honourable member.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– Last night I rose rather reluctantly to move the adjournment of the Address-in-Reply debate. I say ‘rather reluctantly’ because I have been waiting for something like 2 weeks to speak and finally I was given the nod. It may be that this is not a long time by some standards but I was placed on a list of speakers and then 2 minutes before I was due to speak notice came to me that I was not to speak last night. I wonder whether this happens to honourable members on the Government side of the House. I do not want to hear the excuse that the Opposition is delaying the proceedings of this House because I do not think that is a valid excuse. But I want to register a strong protest at the blatant disregard shown for the agenda. One might ask whether the person who draws up the agenda or changes it could produce an agenda for a simple monthly meeting of a sporting club or a parents and citizens association. This is the Government of Australia. I think that this action is indicative of the utter confusion and turmoil that the Government is in. I think that the people of this country should know of it. In my opinion there is nothing more uncertain than the uncertainty of this Government. I believe that the confusion and the uncertainty is breeding growing concern in the people of Australia. No wonder the country is in economic shambles. One might ask where is the plan of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to combat inflation? We have heard of 5 point plans and 6 point plans. The Treasurer probably has a plan - it is probably a 10 point plan and as a result it will take a iittle longer to produce. We will probably hear about the plan when he finishes it. But why this rush to get Bills through? I wonder whether Ministers are afraid that there will be no funds to implement some of their projects and want to get in early.

I accepted your mild rebuke, Mr Speaker, a week ago when I was interjecting. I have since come to know you to be a kindly gentleman and to know that you exercise much tolerance. But I really was concerned for you yesterday, particularly during that part of question time when the House was in uproar when I felt sure that your blood pressure was rising. I was concerned also for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) last night and this morning. I am fully aware that in making this, my maiden speech, in this House I have foregone any privilege that is normally accorded a new member at such a time. I accept this situation and fully realise that I have no immunity with regard to interjections.

There is a popular misconception among many people in this country that members of the Liberal Party, and Liberal parliamentarians in particular, are in the main rich people, or ‘silvertails’ as they are sometimes referred to, who have attended private schools and tend to stand aloof from the great masses. This is a fallacy. It is a view that members of the Labor Party too often see fit to promulgate in an endeavour to denigrate the Liberals and win support for themselves. I want to advise this House that I am an ordinary person, that I am not born of wealthy parents and that I attended a State school, and that I recognise that I breathe the same air and eat the same food as other humans, that I came into this world and will go out of it the same way as all other humans. No doubt there are people on both sides of this House who are wealthy, who went to private schools and who still are ordinary down to earth people.

One of the most pressing needs in Australia today is for people to realise that they must give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. There is too great a tendency for people to take and to give little in return. There are demands by unions for higher wages and more leisure time that are not earned in terms of increased efficiency and greater productivity. Surely no one would deny anyone in this country the right to enjoy a good standard of living with adequate leisure time. But it has to be earned - not gained by easy handouts with no respect for a reasonable level of productivity. The people of this nation have to awaken because we are in danger of slipping into a most undesirable welfare state situation.

The attitudes and approaches of governments have a big bearing on the attitudes and approaches of citizens of a country. In my opinion this Government has a huge responsibility to recognise and arrest undesirable trends present in our communities, trends that it has accelerated. Good, honest, hard working citizens are important to the solidarity of any nation, be it rich or potentially rich. Richness is surely not to be gauged only in terms of money in the bank or a person’s assets, but more importantly by the honesty, integrity and plain decency of the person. So there must be a return to the contribution of a reasonable day’s work, to people wanting to save for a rainy day, instead of the ‘spend while the sun shines’ attitude. We must not have the creation of a huge welfare state.

I recognise that it is important for every country to take care of its citizens who are among the less fortunate in the community. Having been associated with community and charitable work for many years, I am aware of the need for attention by governments in this area so that these people can live the respectable life that they deserve. So let us provide, and provide well, for these people but not fall into the trap of extending benefits to those who are able but not willing to make a contribution. I believe there is a tendency for this Government to overplay social benefit in some areas thereby creating deviates and dropouts instead of concentrating in the areas where there is real need.

It is my firm belief that there must be greater understanding by the business world and the labour force that one cannot survive without the other. I believe that the pendulum is swinging too heavily in favour of the labour force and that incentive is rapidly being diminished for the businessman. It is here that this Government must take the initiative and ensure that the incentives within the business world are not eroded to an extent where the work force will suffer the consequences. There must be a common sense approach by the Government and the burying of the idea that businessmen are mostly out to exploit the labour force. It will only be when this sensible balance and understanding is reached between business and labour that productivity will improve and the nation begin to prosper further.

I was concerned when, in this House on Tuesday of this week, I heard the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) mention that a business concern in Canberra had raised its rates. I was concerned also when the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) rather flippantly made reference to increases. I am not here to protect the interest of big business. But I ask: Who will come to the assistance of the businessman when he goes broke? Will it be this Government, or will it be the unions?

The unsatisfactory rate of productivity must be of grave concern to the Government. This rate reflects the attitude of many people who want to take so much and give so little in return. I listened with interest to the maiden speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I wish that he was in the chamber now. The honourable member referred to the waste of money by political parties in the course of election campaigns. While I concede that he made quite a valid point one might ask him, other members of the trade union movement and the Government to examine the present industrial unrest.

More work days were lost in Australia in the 4 months period from January to April of this year than in any full year since 1929. More than $18,170,000 were lost in wages through industrial disputes in April and in excess of $36,646,000 were lost in March. In April 1973 $3,134,000 were lost through this cause. In terms of productivity, this means a tremendous loss to our country and rather makes the expenditure on election campaigning pale into insignificance. If the Government is looking for a starting point to begin investigation into lack of productivity and the causes of soaring inflation the area of industrial unrest and the unreasonable attitudes of the unions would be a good place to begin.

I wish to make one point abundantly clear. As far as individuals are concerned I do not differentiate between unionists and others. Some of my best friends are unionists. It is the unions and their unreasonable demands and those in government who succumb to all their demands to which I strongly object. Apart from a small amount of hard physical work a number of years ago, my working life has been largely devoted to the profession of pharmacy. I qualified as a pharmacist in 1958. To the best of my knowledge - and I know the profession fairly well - pharmaceutical chemists are not a wealthy race. They do not do what is popularly believed, that is, sell coloured water, although I will admit that the water tap is one of the most frequently used pieces of apparatus in the dispensary. Pharmacy is a very noble profession and very important to the well-being of our community.

In the area of social welfare one section stands out as being in dire need of immediate assistance. The people on age, invalid and widows pensions in many cases are enduring a mere existence because of the high rates of inflation. I say this in spite of the proposed 55 a week increase in the single pension and 56 a week in the pension for a married couple. These are rises that should have been given 12 months ago in the light of the inflationary situation that Australia faces. I would remind honourable members that the pensioner pays just as much for his pound of butter, loaf of bread, can of jam, glass of beer, packet of cigarettes or whatever commodity might be named. In many cases pensioner couples are paying from $20 to $30 weekly for rental premises.

It is interesting to note that, in the Brisbane area, variations of income from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974 of various employees - from clerks to plant operators and tradesmen to cleaners and to labourers - showed an increase of 34 per cent, while the income of the pensioner couple showed an increase of 21 per cent. This is just not good enough. If this Government will not take action to control inflation - it has not been successful to date; and one might ask whether it is really trying - something must be done to improve the lot of the pensioner. Wild promises were made about keeping the pension at 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. The truth of the matter is that the pensioner is falling further behind. The means test must be relaxed so that more pensioners can receive fringe benefits such as the pensioner medical service, telephone concessions, reduced radio and television licence charges, etc. There is fine talk by the Government in relation to the existence of poverty in this country. Inflation is increasing poverty daily, and the Government must act without delay in the needy areas.

Currently I am serving as a member of a local authority - a position I have held for the past 7 years - and therefore I feel qualified to speak on this very important level of government that has been neglected for too long by Federal governments. As an alderman of a Queensland city with a population of approximately 40,000 and a percentage population growth rate ranking third among the cities in the State, I have experienced at first hand the problems that face a rapidly expanding urban community. I make this criticism of this Commonwealth Government in the full knowledge that previous governments which my own Party formed with the Australian Country Party also were negligent in not providing assistance to local government. I make no excuses for this criticism. From past performances one would think that members of this Parliament were completely oblivious to who is responsible for the provision of such important everyday services as water supply, sewerage, roads and drainage; the construction of playgrounds, sporting fields, parks and gardens; the provision of libraries and civic centres; and the disposal of garbage. All of the foregoing are extremely necessary for our everyday living. I was shocked to hear important aspects of town planning being debated so piously when the Glebe Lands (Appropriation) Bill came before this House, when local authorities are so vitally concerned with town planning, building by-laws and by-laws generally for the orderly and proper conduct of a community.

Why then has local government not received more recognition from the Commonwealth Government? Presently local authorities are faced with rate rises, ranging in many cases from 20 per cent up to 50 per cent, in order to carry out their essential works. There is grave concern, shared by many in the over 900 local authorities throughout this country, that if a substantial share of the Commonwealth taxation pool is not channelled to local government stagnation will be widespread. Many serving members of local government, particularly in rapidly expanding urban areas, are loath to increase substantially rates and charges- virtually the only means of revenue - because it would be political suicide. From my experience in Queensland - I have no reason to doubt that the same applies elsewhere in the Commonwealth - local government is run with a good measure of efficiency. However, I believe that there must be more amalgamation of local authority areas, particularly in regard to shires where little or no development is taking place. Considerable savings can be effected, operations can be streamlined and better and more efficient use can be made of plant and machinery, with consequent savings to ratepayers.

Too many councils and shires in Australia have provided no remuneration for their aldermen and councillors. Every” man is worthy of his hire, and if we are to attract men and women of quality to participate in local government we must ensure that they are compensated adequately for their time and efforts. It is absurd and, indeed, unthinkable to have rapidly expanding cities or shires with budgets of, say, §10m to S50m with a mayor and 8 aldermen as directors receiving a collective maximum of SI 5,000 to $20,000 annually, as is often the case, and with many of them putting in up to 30 or 40 hours a week individually. In my opinion, local government must retain its present autonomy. It is vital that these dedicated men and women in control of the local government scene - the area of government closest to the people - retain autonomy of their areas of responsibility.

I remind members of this Parliament that they are the most remote from the people and are somewhat inaccessible; the State members of Parliament are a trifle more accessible; while the. members of the local council take the brunt of everyday complaints. When he raises rates, the residents raise Cain; whereas the State and Federal members can more readily duck the blame for increased taxes. To date the Government has given only lip service to assistance to local government needs. It is true that the Grants Commission, for the first time since its inception in 1933, has been hearing the case for assistance to local government. I know that everyone connected with local government is watching and waiting anxiously for the findings. I sincerely hope that no forward-thinking council, because it has provided costly services and amenities for its ratepayers, will be disadvantaged by the Government’s policy of wanting to bring equality to all areas.

I want to make 2 points abundantly clear: Firstly, I believe that there is a share of Commonwealth taxation that rightfully should go to local authorities on a ‘no strings attached’ basis. This money, I stress, must be in the form of non-repayable grants. Secondly, it should be channelled through the State governments. I am firmly convinced that there are no bodies better equipped than the State governments to handle the distribution of funds. Their government departments and State members are in constant touch with all local authority areas and are best fitted to know the needs of a particular area. There is no need for constitutional change to allow grants to local authorities. Any government can show its bona fides by making the grants available, as did the McMahon Government in 1972 to relieve unemployment. This practice was contitnued for some months by the Labor Government.

I would point out to the Government that whereas rating is based on the unimproved value of the land, the pensioner, the person near to the poverty line, the middle income earner and the wealthy, all living in the same street, are rated the same amounts. Local government does not have at its disposal the same methods of differential taxation according to income as the Commonwealth Government has. It is only through greater recognition of the plight of this area of government by the Commonwealth that relief will come. We must remember that every citizen of this country comes under the control of some local authority.

My electorate of Petrie comprises a number of northern Brisbane suburbs, a good portion of the Pine Shire, a small portion of the Caboolture Shire and the whole of the city of Redcliffe. The area contains some 77,000 electors and the 4 local authorities in the electorate are. all experiencing rapid growth with resultant growing pains. All councils are desperately short of funds to provide what everyone in this House would term essential everyday services. Representatives of these councils are fully aware that many of their ratepayers are stretched to the limit and cannot meet further substantial rate rises without a great deal of hardship. For too long a blind eye has been turned to local government. We must face the problem full on with both eyes open and the purse strings undone.

In my opinion the encouragement of home ownership is an important ingredient in building good citizens. I am appalled at the attitude this Government is adopting in relation to 2 matters that vitally affect home ownership. Firstly, high interest rates are pricing young would-be home owners into being flat and rental home dwellers for the rest of their lives. Secondly, the decree that Commonwealth funds spent through the State housing authorities are to be spent at the rate of no more than 30 per cent on homes for purchase and 70 per cent on homes for rental is indicative of the Government’s attitude to home ownership. If we are to build good solid citizens in this country we must instil pride into them, and what better way than starting off with pride in home ownership? In Queensland over the past 30 years in excess of 45,000 homes have been constructed by the Queensland Housing Commission, resulting in 59 per cent being for ownership and 41 per cent for rental. This more desirable situation will be rapidly reversed, and with no incentive for home ownership large numbers of rental homes will tend to deteriorate along with the attitude of the occupants.

In conclusion, I can only stress that from my personal point of view I will do my utmost to make a useful contribution to the running of this Parliament and pledge my loyalty to Queen and country. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to your high office and I would mention the great assistance I have had from the staff in Parliament House and from my colleagues.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Moore. I again remind the House that this will be a maiden speech and ask for courtesy.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

- Mr Speaker, may I first add my congratulations to those of so many others upon your election to your high office. I look forward to your friendship and impartiality. I succeed Mr Don Maisey as the representative of the electorate of Moore. Mr Maisey served Moore for nearly 11 years as a parliamentarian, and in a sense he served the electorate for many years before that with a contribution to the wheat industry. I am sure that he has contributed much to the electorate.

The Moore electorate is diverse. It extends from Three Springs in the north to Merredin in the east to the commuter suburbs of the Wanneroo Shire and the Darling Ranges. I am proud to represent farmers, cray fishermen, blue and white collar workers, the young, the old, home owners, home renters and home buyers at present struggling to service mortgages on homes in the face of high interest rates brought about by current government policy. I would be hard pressed to find 2 people among the 64,000-odd constituents of Moore who have identical needs, abilities or ambitions. It is clearly ridiculous to imagine that one strong central government could cater for such diversity. It is clearly ridiculous to imagine that a government 2,500 miles away can make itself aware of the ambitions of groups of parents at Girrawheen or Beacon or the new priorities for roads at Leeming or Kalamunda, or to understand the difficulties of new land farmers or the traffic in Wanneroo Road. It is even more ridiculous to imagine that a central government can rank all diverse matters in some meaningful priority and act in the best interests as seen by the local population. Yet, if the whole purpose of government is not to serve these people, what is its purpose?

The whole effect of remote control is to enforce needless conformity so that each and every one must accept his second best or third best or even poorest choice. If groups of people elect to go their own ways, to develop their own communities that happen to suit them, is that a bad thing? Is it a bad thing that Australians should have the widest possible choice as to their way of life and their life style? Only such conformity as is necessary to the functioning of the nation and of society ought to be imposed, not that conformity which is necessary to impose a political philosophy. Furthermore, if Government is to have the authority that comes from cooperation it is necessary that the people feel that they are part of the process of Government; it is necessary that they take an active part in the process of government, be it State or shire or even a parents committee. Furthermore again, if Government is to remain responsible not just to Parliament but to those governed, it is most important that people can easily and personally take issue with their elected representatives. There is no one easier to kick, as the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) has pointed out to the House, than your local shire councillor - poor chap. There is no one more responsive to popular wish, yet real power over the most vital issues is almost removed from his hands.

I wish now to say a word about the meaning of decentralisation. It is, in truth, 2 issues - one of people and one of powers. They are often confused; I believe often deliberately confused. The Australian Labor Party talks of growth centres like AlburyWodonga. There is decentralisation of people. Time and circumstance may show just how sincere it is on that issue. When one ponders roads, telephones, superphosphate then, with the greatest charity, one wonders. However. my concern for the moment is with decentralisation of powers. The present Government makes no pretence of a commitment to decentralised authority. It is unashamedly and with commendable consistency committed to centralised power. The erosion of State and local government authority is, I concede, nothing new though the process has accelerated out of sight in the last 18 months. Because the tendency dates back to Federation and has continued at varying rates through governments of the Right and the Left, we must look for innate causes as well as those of political commitment. We will need to understand those causes in order either to halt or to reverse the trend. Major taxing power is at the centre. The Commonwealth undoubtedly has the widest tax base and the shires undoubtedly the narrowest. The flow of funds is from the centre out. Given that tax policy is, or can be, a major tool in the management of the economy, this is good and maybe even necessary. When the money flows out, however, authority flows in. Funds with all sorts of instructions as to their use flow from Commonwealth to State to shire, and so authority flows from shire to State to Commonwealth. It is another case of he who is paying the piper is calling the tune.

The States are both victims and aggressors. The process in the past, I suspect, was initiated by the natural tendency for every person to accept his own judgment first. Ministers of the Crown, in effect, said: ‘We cannot possibly let the States or shires spend all that money we have raised in such and such a manner when I judge otherwise’. They felt responsible for the moneys, and yet there is no reason to believe that they are any less fallible than those nearer to the people. What once occurred by degrees and by default has now taken on the form of an organised attack. The strategy is simple. First beggar the States and shires, then offer them grants tied in the most minute detail that in the face of bankruptcy they cannot refuse; play State off against State, shire off against shire, and both off against their electors. Witness the Coogee by-election in which one State Premier was called in to defeat another, using the argument that the people of Coogee were suffering because the State of New South Wales had not accepted tied Commonwealth grants. Maybe the people of Coogee are worse off in the very short term - I do not concede that they are - but how much ‘better off will the State of New South Wales be in the long term if the principle of State authority can be established? Local government is being emasculated so that instead of being the third arm of government it is becoming an administrative organ of the Commonwealth without meaningful powers of determination. And what of the States? As I understand both the policy and the trend, they are to disappear altogether. So much for the situation as it is.

I turn now to what might be done about it. We can, on track record, dismiss any hopes that the Whitlam Government of its own initiative will do anything to decentralise powers. Perhaps on occasions those pieces of legislation that most blatantly usurp State and local authority will find passage through the Senate too stormy. However, the failure of those Bills will result at least in temporary financial difficulties for those same States and shires. The transfer of power too often does not depend on legislation in any case. In the face of current politics and government policy the one hope is that the States will make a stand together and use what political muscle they can muster to defy the usurpation of those powers that it was constitutionally intended they should exercise. Their united voice will surely carry some weight so long as this Government cherishes any hopes of re-election at some future date.

The meeting of the 6 State Premiers in Melbourne - two of them Labor, one Country Party and 3 Liberal - is historic. It is the first time, I believe, that they have met in the absence of a Prime Minister. At least in some areas a joint approach was agreed upon. They displayed a willingness to speak with one voice to the Commonwealth on at least some matters. The Commonwealth Government - any Commonwealth Government - must find it more difficult to resist a united voice, particularly one that contains members of the same Party as the central government. The united approach ‘becomes, in a sense, an appeal to the electorate at large - the final determinant in all matters political. The only satisfactory long term solution to the problem of State and local government powers is the provision of adequate finance over which the State or shire has complete determination and for which it is completely responsible. This is not to say that they must raise all their own taxes; rather it is to say, firstly, that general untied grants should be sufficient to enable the recipient to conduct its own affairs as it wishes and, secondly, that the grants should be finite and should engender responsibility. Irresponsible expenditure should never result in further grants. Matching money techniques are unsatisfactory because the smaller body need never weigh the total cost against the benefit. Fourthly, revenue will need to grow with population and inflation. A guaranteed proportion of income taxes flowing to the States as of right without strings would fulfil these needs. It would return real authority to the States. Then, with the States meeting the Commonwealth as equals, it might be possible to agree upon a sensible rationalisation of responsibilities with powers transferred in both directions. I commend the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the honourable member for Hume I again remind honourable members that this is a maiden speech and ask for their co-operation and courtesy.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

- Mr Speaker, firstly I congratulate you on your re-election to the high office of Speaker. I also convey my congratulations to the other new members on their contributions to this House through their maiden speeches- It is a significant honour to have been elected by the people of Hume to be their representative in this Parliament. Hume is a large area covering approximately 13,000 square miles in the south-west of New South Wales. It runs from Blayney in the north to below Batlow in the south, aDd from the Australian Capital Territory border to Temora and Junee. I sincerely hope that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) will refrain from making it any larger than it is at present. Country people have a right to access to their member and they are already at a significant disadvantage when compared with electors in metropolitan electorates.

Hume is adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory and possesses some of the best country and some of the best towns in Australia. It is the home of that great Australian, Henry Lawson, who was born at Grenfell and is honoured in that district yearly. Grenfell was also the haunt of the great Ben Hall, and the fact that it is the home of two distinguished Country Party men, the honourable member for Calare (Mr England) and Senator Doug Scott, is not to suggest that they too are bushrangers.

I extend an invitation to any honourable member who is stranded in Canberra for a weekend to come into Hume and experience the best of what Australia has to offer. I am sure all honourable members have enjoyed a Batlow apple or a glass of Mountain Maid Cider or a cherry from Young, but I wonder how many have driven through the hills and pine forests around Tumut and Batlow as the Prime Minister will do in a few months time, or have been up the magnificent Lachlan Valley from Young to Cowra. How many have fished in Burrinjuck or Wyangala Dam? How many know that the Edgell country garden is in Hume and that most of the steak you eat in the dining room is from the Conkey abattoir in Cootamundra - all the good steaks anyway. I can recommend Hume to any honourable member who is interested in good people, good food and good country and I want to assure Government supporters that there is no truth in the rumour that the dog which sits on the tuckerbox at Gundagai has been trained to bite members of the Labor Party.

This Parliament has been honoured by the presence of some distinguished former members for Hume, Mr Arthur Fuller will be remembered by many. He first came into this place in 1931 for the Labor Party. He won and lost his seat on several occasions and claimed that he made 3 maiden speeches. I hope that does not happen to me. Colonel Charles Anderson, V.C., M.C., is enjoying good health and is still living in Hume. Colonel Anderson has been a source of .inspiration to me and there would not have been a better Australian ever to serve in this House. Ian Pettitt is still living at Harden in the middle of Hume. He served this Parliament well, particularly on committees, and especially in the areas of social security and Papua New Guinea affairs. He has also been of great assistance to me. My opponent, Frank Olley, the former member, will, I understand, remain active in political circles and I congratulate him on his result. These men all served Hume well and have set me a high standard. I have given my electors an undertaking that I will be serving their interests on a fulltime basis; I will have no other distractions. I hope my representation of the electors of Hume is of a high standard.

I wish to point out to the House the state of rural unemployment in Australia. The House may be aware that at the end of June 78,827 people were registered as unemployed. The House may not be aware that 43,255 of these were rural unemployed. Almost 55 per cent of the unemployment in Australia today is in the country, not in the cities. The people who live in Hume and in country areas generally want to know what proposals the Minister for Labor and Immigration - or his spokesman in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister - have for alleviating non-metropolitan unemployment. We used to have a system of making money available to local government to provide jobs in the country. I would like to see consideration given to reintroducing rural unemployment relief to equalise employment opportunities in non-metropolitan Australia.

One of the most significant problems facing the electorate of Hume is the interaction between the electorate and the national capital, Canberra. I listened the other night to my neighbour, the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Whan), with some degree of envy. He spoke, the House may recall, of what a wonderful time Eden-Monaro had had under the Labor Government. He referred to it as a ‘bonanza’ for Eden-Monaro. I can only think that Hume was behind the door when the goodies were ‘being handed out. 1 want to take this opportunity of making a strong plea on behalf of Hume and its people for some consideration in this question of over the border growth and the responsibility of the Australian Government in this area.

There can be no question that the Australian Government must accept a responsibility for the effect the existence of Canberra has on the surrounding area. The Barton Highway must become a Federal responsibility. The road to Tumut must become a reality. Negotiations must be actively pursued with the New South Wales Government to enable the people of Hume to be at no disadvantage because of their proximity to Canberra. Arrangements between the Commonwealth and State Governments must be concluded to allow for the proper planning of the region. If these arrangements are not concluded soon there will be irretrievable harm caused by the pressure of an expanding Canberra on those currently responsible for the administration of this area. Let this Government be aware that there is a western as well as an eastern side to the Australian Capital Territory.

Another point I wish to draw to the attention of the Government is the extent to which poverty exists in rural areas. One has only to go as far as page 8 of the interim report of the Australian Government’s Commission of

Enquiry into Poverty dated March 1974 - the Henderson report. There we see that 399,000 family units are very poor, that is, below the poverty line. This represents an average across the nation level of 10.2 per cent of families. But what is the position in rural Australia, excluding farmers. Rural Australia accounts for 142,000 of those 399,000 below the poverty line families. So 14.4 per cent of rural families are below the poverty line compared with the national average of 10.2 per cent. Henderson does not say at what level that leaves the city average.

A similar situation exists in the other category listed by Henderson - rather poor or less than 20 per cent above the poverty line. In this category the national average is 7.8 per cent and the rural - non-farmer - figure is 10.8 per cent. These figures are significant. I know what the reaction would be if the figures were reversed. If city poverty figures were higher than the national average, massive programs of redistribution of wealth would be instituted. But country people are not treated in like fashion. I call on the Government to act immediately to reduce the high level of poverty in rural Australia - non-metropolitan Australia.

I would like to record some of my feelings towards the condition of youth in country areas. When I refer to youth I refer to the teenage group, particularly at the middle and younger end of the scale. So many of the towns in Hume have an empty shop which has been filled with pin-ball machines and is full of young people participating in that noble occupation known as hanging round. These kids are just waiting for the day when they will be old enough to go into a pub and switch from coke to beer. It seems to me a tragedy that the future of this country - the young people - are not encouraged to do something more worthwhile than play pin-ball. I would hope that the Australian Assistance Plan or some other agency of this welfare Government would look into this problem which by no means is confined to the country. Perhaps the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) could institute a survey of recreational needs and suggest possible ways of meeting the demand by youth for such facilities.

I have referred to the attributes of Hume, one of Australia’s premier rural areas, with its dozen or so medium size towns. It produces the best fine wool in the world, particularly in the area around Yass; it is one of Australia’s richest wheat producing areas and is second to none in terms of beef and lamb production. It is diversified with fruit and vegetables and supports light industries, including pine processing at Tumut and magnesium processing at Young, as well as major railway centres. I mention these points because this is the record of achievement of the people of Hume. They are fine people who have worked hard and who continue to work hard tilling the soil and building their businesses. In doing so they have helped make Australia the rich and prosperous nation it is today. The people of Hume have been fortunate to have had naturally productive soil. But they have not sat back on their inheritance and taken things easy. These people have accepted the challenge of increasing their productivity and getting the most from their soil realising that not to go forward is to go backward. Over the years they have had the incentive to do better and to improve on what they started with. This is the great Australian spirit - the Australian tradition.

In times of plenty they have re-invested in the soil and bought bigger and better machinery. They have ploughed their money back into Australia and enabled industries in the cities to grow and employ more people, producing and satisfying the needs of these country people. Australia has led the world in the field of agricultural machinery because of the demands and initiatives of country people.

The people of Hume have contributed handsomely to Australia. They have accepted their responsibility as owners of fertile lands. They deserve the support of Government in adverse times, having established their bona fides as worthwhile Australians and honest workers. We have witnessed under this Labor Administration the most severe and the most unjustified attack that has ever been experienced by the rural sector. Country people, including the people of Hume, are Australians like all other Australians. They are hard working and conscientious, perhaps more so than other groups. They deserve a better deal than what has been served up since December 1972. Like all businesses they need incentive. They need a reason for staying in business. They need and are entitled to a fair return for their labour and a fair margin on their investment. Without this incentive they will not strive to produce and Australia will be the poorer.

This Government had no right to bring an entire and an important section of the Aus tralian economy to a position where, today, it is on the brink of disaster. This Government should have known that seasonal and economic factors are such that rural industries can move from never so good to never so bad within a space of 12 months. This Government should have seen that the decline had already set in when it started the great rural rip off. The Whitlam Administration will rue the day that it upset the balance in Australia’s rural industries. Do the memories not go back only a few years when the last recession nearly bankrupted the country towns, when those towns that depend on a viable rural industry - there are plenty in Hume - were racked with unemployment and closing business houses, when foreign exchange was not being earned? No government can allow an entire sector of the community and the economy go to the wall as a result of that government’s actions. If present trends continue and rural industries begin to collapse this Government will be forced to mount a massive rescue operation that will cost more than what is being ripped off under the Coombs manifesto. Australia will continue to need a viable rural industry into the foreseeable future and it will need people like those in Hume to operate it and to work in the towns. I make this plea on the occasion of my maiden speech. Let us unite Australia as one powerful productive force, as one great and undivided people, as a country ready and able to assume its responsibilities in a difficult world. Finally, I would like to let the Government know that I am here to represent the people of Hume and I will attempt to do that to the best of my ability.

I wish to thank the electors of Hume for expressing their confidence and trust in me and I pledge myself to honour that confidence and trust. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall ascertain when it will be. convenient for His Excellency the Governor-General to receive the Addressinreply and will notify honourable members accordingly.

page 1097

CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY (GOOGONG DAM) BILL 1974

Assent reported.

page 1097

ADJOURNMENT

Supporting Fathers - Secretarial Assistance for Members of Parliament

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– In a few weeks the Government will be considering its Budget. I should like to make a plea for the inclusion in that consideration of one special group. Last week the representatives of the Supporting Fathers organisation waited upon the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). These people are representatives of widowers with dependent children and of deserted husbands with dependent children. I believe that this group is worthy of special support and urgent consideration. Unlike widows, deserted wives or divorced women these people receive no help from the Government whatsoever. I believe that they would have been next in line for relief if we had remained in power. However, I do not take this on a party line at all. I ask the Government to give special consideration to the needs of these people.

It is a terrible thing for a husband to lose his wife by death, particularly a young wife, because it is only comparatively young women who have dependent children. It is bad for a husband to be deserted and for his family to be left without a mother. When a husband receives this emotional shock why should we make it almost impossible for him to proceed to hold his family together? Why should he inflict on him. the added grief of the family being broken up because he cannot meet the financial commitment of keeping it together. A man has his job. If he does not have his job he has no income. If he has a small income he cannot afford a housekeeper. How can a deserted husband leave his children unprotected, unguarded and not looked after at all. For that man there may be no help available. He may be lucky and have a mother who can take in her grandchildren, or a sister who can take in her nephews and nieces. He may have some relative or friend who can look after them. That is second best, but it is better than having to relinquish them and allow them to go into some kind of institution.

These men do need help. In these days of ‘women’s lib’, or whatever we may like to call it, the widowers and deserted husbands should be placed on the same footing as the widows and deserted wives. It may be only an interim solution. The operation of the means test will prevent such men ever drawing pensions and getting into a rich category, but they do merit or deserve this special help. I make the plea to the Government that in this Budget some recognition be made of the special needs of these people - the supporting fathers, the widowers with dependent children and the deserted husbands with dependent children. They should be at the top of the priority list. I commend this cause to the Government.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr Speaker, you do not need to be reminded, because you are the man who always chairs the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House, that on a number of nights in the last couple of weeks a battle has been waged between the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) and me. Mine has been a battle to extract truth and to ascertain facts. Regrettably, on each and every occasion, the answer I have received has been simply a tirade of abuse. Last night I was supported toy the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), who is the shadow Minister for Services and Property. I hope that the Minister will recognise that we on this side of the House regard the matter that has been raised as serious and that he will not treat it as a flippant issue.

Last night the Minister presented to the House a sheet containing certain details of the use made of the secretarial pool toy various honourable members. What I want to point out now is that that sheet, which I agreed to have incorporated in Hansard, covered the period since the inception of the system which the Minister generously and kindly introduced initially. The period in which I am interested is the 3 weeks prior to the election. Would the Minister mind listening? Apparently he does not want to listen. I hope that question No. 853 on page 1003 of the notice paper is answered quickly because the answer to it will provide the details we seek. If I am proved wrong and favouritism has not been exercised towards members of the present Government Party I will be the first to stand up here and say that I am sorry. But if I am proved correct - I hope that the Minister does not let this question remain on the notice paper month after month - I hope that he will recognise that he must accept responsibility for what goes on within his Department. It is not satisfactory for him to stand up in this place and say: ‘I do not interest myself in such matters’. It is his duty to ensure that his Department administers fairness to both Government and Opposition members.

I repeat a comment which I made much earlier - abuse will get nobody anywhere. If the Minister thinks that he can intimidate me by saying that I will not get secretarial assistance in the future or by casting nasty reflections upon my breeding - to use his words - and that that will silence me, he is wrong. I work to a very simple rule. If I believe something is wrong and I have done my work to check it out to ensure that I am not incorrectly implicating anybody, I will pursue the issue until the end no matter what might be hurled at me or said about me.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House stands adjourned until a time to be announced by Mr Speaker.

House adjourned at 3.56 p.m.

page 1099

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Public Service Recruitment (Question No. 1)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many Public Service positions which have been declared vacant in each of the last two years have been advertised on the basis that recruitment will be as a permanent officer of the Public Service but applications may also be made on the basis of employment for a two year, or some other specified, period.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Public Service Board has informed me that detailed records are not kept on this aspect of recruitment advertising. The provision however was included, for example, in advertisements for staff for the Board’s own Office which appeared in the press in December 1973. I understand that information about lateral recruitment to the Board’s Office is to be included in the Board’s Annual Report which I expect to table in September.

Since 1970 the Board’s Annual Reports have referred to the arrangements which permit the Australian Public Service to draw on specially qualified and experienced people in the community for shortterm employment on a non-career basis. These references, in a regular item entitled ‘Short-term Engagement and release of Staff’, list examples.

I understand that similar information will appear in this year’s Report.

Priorities Review Staff (Question No. 4)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What investigations have been commissioned on referral from the Government to the Priorities Review Staff.
  2. Has the Priorities Review Staff made any reports to the Government other than its interim report in December 1973; if so, what reports have been made.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) The terms of reference of the Priorities Review Staff were set out in a statement by the then Special Minister of State, Senator Willesee, on 19 August 1973 (Australian Government Digest Volume 1 Number 3, page 1231).

Consistent with these terms of reference the Staff engages in a continuous study of a wide range of topics and furnishes briefing and advice in a variety of forms ranging from oral briefing for individual Ministers to formal reports to the Government.

In addition to its interim report (‘Goals and Strategies’) in December, 1973, the Staff has been specifically commissioned by the Government to provide -reports on child care and the allocation of FM and A’M broadcasting licences. A report entitled ‘Early Childhood services’ was tabled by the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on 30 July 1974. To date, no other reports have been received by the Government.

Government Grants (Question No. 69)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister:

  1. Will he provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer which is provided below gives details in respect of: ‘(a) Appropriations for 1971/72, 1972/73, 1973/74 which are still under Prime Ministerial control.

  1. Appropriations for 1971/72 and 1972/73 which were under Prime Ministerial control but which did not recur in 1972-73 and/or 1973/74.

Where Appropriations under Prime Ministerial control in 1971/72 and/or 1972/73 passed to the control of another Minister by 1973/74, information for all years will be provided by that Minister.

For the purpose of this answer “research” has been interpreted to include investigation and fact-finding activity as well as theory orientated inquiry.

The information is as follows:

Australian Business in Fiji (Question No. 132)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Has the Government of Fiji made any representations to the Australian Government concerning the activity of Australian businesses in Fiji.
  2. If so, what was the response of the Australian Government.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) No representations have been made to the Australian Government by the Government of Fiji.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 143)

Mr Lynch:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Industry Development Corporation requested a waiver of the variable deposit requirement on overseas borrowings.
  2. If so, what was (a) the detail of each request and (b) the decision by the Government.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) By reason of sub-paragraph (d) of the Treasurer’s answer to Question No. 147 (see Hansard of 25 July, 1974), overseas borrowings by the Australian Industry Development Corporation are not subject to the variable deposit requirement.

Australia’s Coastline: Surveillance (Question No. 210)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government established a committee to examine the question of increasing surveillance of Australia’s coastline.
  2. If so, what is the composition of the committee and its terms of reference.
  3. Has the committee submitted a report to the Government.
  4. If so, does the Government intend to table this report.
  5. If it has not submitted a report when is it expected that the committee will finalise its work and present a report to the Government, and when does the Government expect to reach a decision to ensure that adequate facilities are available for this surveillance.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Yes, two interdepartmental committees have been established. The first committee consisted of representatives from the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Attorney-General’s, Customs and Excise, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Health, Labor and Immigration, Northern Territory, Agriculture, Special Minister of State, Transport and Treasury and the Public Service Board. ‘The Committee was set up to examine and report on ways in which coastal surveillance activities could be improved and to consider such related matters as the form of organisation, the equipment required and the costs involved.

This committee completed its investigations and submitted Working Group and Study Group reports.

Following Government consideration of these reports a second interdepartmental committee of interested departments has been established under the Chairmanship of the Department of Transport. The committee is to report on the provisions by the Marine Operations Centre of the most effective co-ordination for the improvement of routine coastal surveillance around Australia.

  1. No, as the submitted reports contain confidential information.
  2. The study is continuing.

Art Exhibitions: Financial Assistance (Question No. 207)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many applications has the Visual Arts Board received from public art galleries and art collections for assistance with exhibitions.
  2. From whom have the applications been received, and for what purpose.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  2. –

NATIONAL

Art Gallery Directors’ Conference - Cartier Bresson Exhibition - Cossington-Smith Exhibition

The Australian Society for Education through the Arts - Art for Schools (two exhibitions)

NEW SOUTH WALES

Art Gallery of New South Wales - Print Exhibition Feininger and Hirschfeld-Mack

Camden Municipal Art Festival - Acquisitive Contemporary Art Exhibition

Contemporary Art Society of Australia, N.S.W. Branch - Two Young Contemporary Exhibitions

Kerry Dundas- Cossington-Smith and Strachan Retrospective

Municipality of Leichhardt - Art Exhibition 1974

Newcastle City Art Gallery - Two Annual Acquisition Exhibitions

Taree Municipal Council - Acquisitive 19th Annual Art Exhibition

VICTORIA

The Ararat Gallery - Electronic Exhibition

Ballarat Fine Art Gallery - Moonrise Exhibition - George Crouch Exhibition - Lionel Lindsay

Centenary Exhibition - Australian Neo-Realism Paintings - 90th Anniversary Exhibition

Benalla Art Gallery - Retrospective Exhibition - Matthew James MacNally

City of Hawthorn - Murray Griffin Retrospective

City of Mildura Arts Centre- ‘Witworks’ Exhibition (sculpture) March 1974

Ewing Gallery, University of Melbourne - General Exhibition

Frankston Festival Art Show- Festival Art Show Geelong Art Gallery - Maya Grieder Pastels and

Drawings - Geelong Sculpture Exhibition Latrobe Arts Centre - Works with paper exhibition Shepparton Art Gallery - Permanent Collection

QUEENSLAND

Biloela Art Gallery - Various exhibitions for 1974 Toowoomba Art Society - Annual Acquisitive Exhibition

Toowoomba Photographic Society - Third International Photographic Exhibition

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Contemporary Art Society - Festival of Arts Exhibition

Naracoorte Art Gallery Incorporated - Acquisitive Exhibition, paintings and prints for March 1975

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Bunbury Art Gallery - The Artists View of Australia Exhibition

Contemporary Art Society of Western Australia - Touring Exhibition

Fremantle Arts Centre - Three Young Western Australian painters - Guy Grey-Smith - Two Decades of Paintings

The Town Clerk, Geraldton - An exhibition supplied by the Art Gallery of Western Australia

The Western Australian Art Gallery - Western Australian artists exhibition - Tamarind - Homage to Lithography - Perth Prize for drawing 1975

TASMANIA

The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery - 18th Tasmanian Art Gallery Exhibition, painting, sculpture, etc.

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Daramalan College - Daramalan Invitation Art Exhibition

Garry Willis- National Gallery Exhibition

Australian Artists (Question No. 208)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many applications have been received from public galleries or art collections for matching grants to purchase works of art by living Australian artists.
  2. From whom have the applications been received.
  3. What amounts have been sought, and which Australian artists are involved.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  2. and (3) Applications received from (number of applications shown in brackets)

Fuel Tax Finance (Question No. 209)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: ‘Did he indicate to the Australian Automobile Association in 1972 that a Labor Government would not further decrease the percentage of fuel tax finance then allocated to roads.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The proceeds of taxes levied by the Australian Government on fuels are paid directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund where they form part of the general revenue of the Government. This is in accordance with the policy of the Australian Labor Party as decided at the 1971 Conference, that fuel taxes should be regarded as general revenue taxes. In principle, taxes on petroleum products are similar to other general revenue taxes such as those levied on beer and cigarettes. The proceeds of these general revenue taxes are not earmarked to finance particular types of outlays but are used to assist in financing outlays over the whole range of the Government’s activities.

In April 1972 I met a delegation from the Australian Automobile Association and outlined the attitude of the Australian Labor Party as amended at the 1971 Conference.

Public Enterprise and Government Spending (Question No. 230)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the proportion of public enterprise and general government capital expenditure as a proportion of total fixed capital expenditure in (a) 1971- 72, (b) 1972-73 and (c) 1973-74.
  2. What increase, in dollar terms, on latest available figures would have been required to bring the proportion to 40 per cent.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. The proportions requested were 34.8 per cent in 1971-72 and 35.9 per cent in 1972-73. The proportion for 1973-74 cannot be reliably estimated at this time.
  2. The answer to this question is indeterminate. It would depend, among other things, on what happened to gross private fixed capital expenditure in the envisaged circumstances and, in consequence, total fixed capital expenditure.

Australian Coast Guard (Question No. 318)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is there an interdepartmental committee report suggesting that Australia should have a coast guard unit in Australia’s territorial waters.
  2. If so, would such a unit have a national security purpose.
  3. What action has been taken on the report, and will it be tabled.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question No. 210.

Schools: Lunch Program (Question No. 463)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government considering the provision of finance to the States for the introduction of a school lunch program now that the school milk program has been terminated.
  2. If so. what progress has been made towards its implementation.
  3. If not, why not.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Consideration is currently being given to arrangements to provide the supplementary nutritional requirements of needy children in child care or educational institutions.

French Ambassador (Question No. 652)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that during July 1973 the Deputy, and then Acting Prime Minister criticised the Ambassador of France in Australia for making statements direct to the Australian Press.
  2. Is is also a fact that the Attorney-General, when visiting France in 1973, spoke directly to the Press in Paris by Press conference and otherwise almost every day.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No such statement was made in July 1973. The question is presumably directed towards the statement which the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Barnard, made on 1 August 1973 when he said that ‘he was surprised and sorry that the French Ambassador had taken the most unusual step of releasing a statement attacking the Australian Government. Such a step was neither in accordance with customary diplomatic Propriety nor conducive to the maintenance of the kind of relations with France which, despite recent difficulties, the Australian Government hoped to preserve’. The Government stands by this statement.
  2. The Attorney-General made a number of statements to the Press, and in particular he issued a public statement on 19 April 1973 which had been shown beforehand to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. The statement noted that the discussions in Paris, which concerned the continuance of French nuclear tests in the Pacific, were ‘cordial and frank and every effort was made to find an amicable resolution to this dispute’.

Portrait of Her Majesty (Question No. 856)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: ‘(1) Is a portrait of Her Majesty The Queen still supplied with the Australian Flag to schools; if not, why not.

  1. Has it been the custom to supply a portrait of Her Majesty in order that it could be appropriately displayed in the schools.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Cambodia: Representation (Question No. 645)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did Australia fail to vote with the United States of America, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Fiji in favour of a motion to defer for 12 months the question before the General Assembly of the United Nations in late 1973 as to whether Cambodia should be represented by diplomats of the Lon Nol Government or those of Prince Sihanouk; if so, why.
  2. As this vote, if carried, would almost certainly have led to the expulsion of the existing representative of a government with which the Australian Government has diplomatic relations, what is the reasoning behind his claim that this matter was only a procedural question. ‘(3) Would he elaborate on the policy involved which allows him to turn his back on the combined views of our long-standing friends and allies who made it perfectly clear that they regarded it as a most important question.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. On 5 December 1973, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a procedural motion that the debate on the Cambodian item be adjourned to the 29th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1974. Australia’s abstention on the motion was in accordance with the Government’s attitude to the use of procedural tactics to delay the discussion of substantive items. The Government has a strong distaste for procedural tactics, such as were used for many years to prevent China’s admission to the United Nations.
  2. The motion before the Assembly was a procedural motion seeking to defer debate of the sub- stantive issues of the Cambodian question until 1974. This motion was carried. If the motion had been defeated, resulting in a vote on the substantive issues, Australia would have voted in favour of the Government with which it had diplomatic relations, that is the Government of the Khmer Republic.
  3. The Australian Government also considers the substantial issue of Cambodian representation in the United Nations to be a most significant matter. We wish to see an early return of peace in Cambodia and we would wish all Cambodian parties concerned to do everything possible to promote a peaceful solution. The Australian Government’s desire for the cessation of hostilities in Cambodia is in accordance with the aims of our long-standing friends and allies.

The Prime Minister: Visit to Prince Sihanouk (Question No. 651)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. What was his purpose in visiting Prince Sihanouk during his visit to Peking in 1973.
  2. Which Australians were present with him at the interview.
  3. In elaboration of Government policy to Cambodia, are his actions based on the premise that Prince Sihanouk is the political leader of Khmer Rouge and other military forces fighting the Lon Nol Government’s forces.
  4. Is it a fact that the Communist countries call for the reinstatement of Prince Sihanouk as Head of State of Cambodia, although they have shown antagonism to hereditary and royal rulers elsewhere in the world, even when parliamentary endorsement has been given to such rulers; if so, what is the attitude of the Government to this ironic situation.
  5. Did the meeting in Peking take place at (a) the Australian Embassy, (b) Prince Sihanouk’s residence or office or (c) another and neutral meeting place.
  6. At whose request did the meeting take place.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. To discuss events since we last met in January 1968 and to discuss possible future developments.
  2. The Australian Ambassador to China and my Principal Private Secretary.
  3. Some 50 governments around the world recognise Prince Sihanouk’s Royal Government of National Union.
  4. Communist governments, including the Chinese government, frequently recognise and receive royal heads of state.
  5. (b).
  6. The meeting was arranged jointly between Prince Sihanouk and myself.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Appointment of Women (Question No. 102)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs 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 Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 97 on page 625 Hansard dated 24 July, 1974.

Australian Textile Industry (Question No. 192)

Mr Graham:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Labour and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether the textile industry in Australia is comparable in many ways to the textile industries in Scandinavian countries.
  2. Can he also say whether the problem of unemployment, within those textile industries in those countries, is as great relatively as in Australia.
  3. Will he protect Australian industry production from unfair competition from Asian countries in which, by Australian standards, there is the condition of sweated labour.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) : I am not in the position at this time to make detailed comparisons between the textile industry of Australia and those of the Scandinavian countries. However, I can and do assure the honourable member that the Government is giving careful consideration to the effects of import competition on the Australian textile industry. I also draw the honourable member’s attention to the wide range of existing schemes available to assist the affected firms and individual employees.

Overseas Trips: Whitlam Ministry (Question No. 193)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many overseas trips has each Minister undertaken, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister since 2 December 1972.
  2. What countries were visited, and what were the dates.
  3. How many persons accompanied each Minister on each visit at Government expense, excluding journalists.
  4. What was the nature of each visit.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I am informed as follows:

Information on overseas visits commenced before 30 June 1973 was given on 23 August 1973 (Hansard page 381).

Australian Public Service: Part-time Female Employees (Question No. 315)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many women work part-time in the Public Service.
  2. In what departments do they work.
  3. What is the average number of hours worked per week.
  4. How many of the women are married.
  5. What is the age structure of these women.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. At May 1974 the number of women working part-time in the Australian Public Service was 5808.
  2. These women worked part-time in all departments of the Australian Public Service with the exception of the Departments of Northern Development and Northern Territory. They are also employed in most statutory authorities employing staff under the Public Service Act.
  3. Information on the average number of hours worked per week would not be available without a survey of all relevant departments.
  4. In line with the Government’s principle of equality of opportunity for men and women in the Australian Public Service, I announced on 29 August 1973 that women are no longer required to notify the Public Service Board of their marriages and are not required to produce their marriage certificates for employment in the Australian Public Service. Furthermore, women now have the choice of Miss, Mrs or Ms as a title of courtesy. Consequently statistics identifying married women officers as such are no longer collected. The information requested is therefore not available.
  5. Information on the age structure of the women employed part-time would not be available without a survey of all relevant departments.

Australian Public Servants Disciplinary Provisions (Question No. 321)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Does the Government intend to revise section 55 of the Public Service Act concerning offences by public servants; if so, when.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Public Service Board has advised that a comprehensive review of the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act and Regulations (including section 55 of the Act) has been undertaken by a subcommittee of Joint Council, an employer/employee organisation established under the Public Service Act by the Chifley Labor Government in 1945 to make reports and recommendations to the Public Service Board on matters of general interest in relation to the Service.

The Board has not yet completed its examination of the Joint Council’s proposals.

The Royal Commission into the Australian Public Service will also be considering the subject of discipline.

The Government will consider any recommendations on disciplinary provisions which the Board or the Royal Commission, or both, may make.

Australian Public Service: Second Division Officers (Question No. 322)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that staff associations or representatives of Public Service staff associations do not take part in any tribunals established to examine charges of alleged breaches of the Public Service Act by Second Division public servants. (.2) If so, what is the attitude of the Government to this situation.
  2. Does the Government propose to take action to allow representation by staff associations.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Section 56 of the Public Service Act requires the Public Service Board to appoint a Board of Inquiry (consisting of three persons) to inquire into charges reported under that section against First and Second Division officers.

The Act does not specify any criteria to be taken into account by the Board in making such appointments.

The last such Board of Inquiry, appointed in 1961, comprised: a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court as Chairman; a retired senior statutory office holder; and a senior Second ‘Division officer from a department.

  1. and (3) The disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act have recently been reviewed by a sub-committee of Joint Council, an employer/ employee organisation established under the Public Service Act by the Chifley Labor Government in 1945 to make reports and recommendations to the Public Service Board on matters of general interest in relation to the Service.

The Public Service Board has not yet completed its examination of the Joint Council’s proposals.

The Royal Commission into the Australian Public Service will also be considering the subject of discipline.

The Government will, of course, consider any recommendations on disciplinary provisions which the Board or the Royal Commission, or both, may make.

Australian Capital Territory: Government Houses (Question No. 490)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. On what basis are Government houses made available to applicants in the A.C.T.
  2. Under what conditions can persons purchase these houses.
  3. What are the terms and conditions of loans from the A.C.T. Housing Commissioner.
  4. What is the average cost of (a) 2, (to) 3, and (c) 4 bedroom houses. !(5) In what way does the new Government policy differ from the former policy.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ‘(1) There are two waiting lists for Government housing - one which was closed on 28 September 1973 and one opened subsequently.

Admission to the new list is limited to A.C.T. employed families whose breadwinner’s gross income does not exceed $121 per week or where there are more than two dependent children $121 per week with an additional allowance of $2 per week for each dependent child in excess of two.

Houses are still being allocated to persons on the waiting list which was closed on 28 September 1973.

It is also a condition of eligibility for allocation of a Government house in all cases that the applicant does not hold a residential lease in the A.C.T. or own a house in Queanbeyan. Allocations are not made except in special circumstances to persons who have had previous Government housing assistance in the A.C.T.

In certain cases of distress or priority need, houses are allocated on a priority basis.

  1. For tenants in occupation of Government houses as of 7 July 1972, a minimum deposit of 5 per cent of the total value of the property and a Government loan for the balance of the purchase price. If a house was allocated on a priority basis the tenant is not eligible to purchase until the expiration period equivalent to the waiting time for a three bedroom house.

Persons who were on the Government housing waiting list on 7 July 1972 are currently entitled, when allocated houses, to purchase with a minimum deposit of 10 per cent and mortgage up to 512,000 maximum. The availability of the mortgage is subject to a needs test.

The interest rate is 7i per cent with a rebate of 1 per cent for payment of instalments by the due date. The maximum term of mortgages is 45 years. Valuation is at current market value.

Tenants who purchase Government houses, if wishing to sell within five years of purchase, are required under Section 28 A of the City Area Leases Ordinance to give first offer to the Crown.

  1. Loans up to a maximum amount of $12,000 are made available by the Commissioner for Housing for purchase of existing houses or erection of new houses, repayable over a maximum period of 32 years with interest at 7i per cent with a .rebate of 1 per cent for prompt payment.

Housing costing more than $35,000 including land are not financed under the scheme unless .there are exceptional circumstances. The Commissioner for Housing loan is not available to applicants who have sufficient means to finance their own homes or who are eligible to receive Defence Service Homes loans.

  1. No two bedroom houses are being erected. The current average cost of three and four ‘bedroom houses is:
  1. Mainly in seeking to provide rental housing or loans to those who appear to have the greatest need.

Australian Industries: Labour Turnover (Question No. 520)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the percentage turnover of employees in major Australian industries.
  2. What arc the major reasons for this job turnover.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. The latest available figures for labour turnover are based on the annual survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March 1973 (ref. no. 6.8). During this month the rate for male manual workers was 8.0 per cent and for male non-manuals 2.9 per cent. Turnover rates for male manual workers in major industry groups were as follows:

These figures compare with a rate of 9.3 per cent for female manual workers and 4.7 per cent for female non-manuals. The rates for female manual workers in major industries were:

  1. The ABS survey referred to above distinguished the following reasons for separation by manual workers:

Research undertaken by my Department suggests that the major reasons for voluntary leaving by employees are dissatisfaction with their job, a desire for job improvement (including higher earnings), and domestic circumstances.

Overseas Property Bureau (Question No. 695)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. Is the Overseas Property Bureau part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  2. If so, for how long has this been the case.
  3. What is the status of the Bureau within the

Department of Foreign Affairs’ structure.

  1. What is the Bureau’s total staff.
  2. How many of these are Foreign Affairs’ officers.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Formalities for transfer of the Overseas Property Bureau to the Department of Foreign Affairs arc expected to be completed shortly.
  2. The Bureau, while organisationally part of the Department of Foreign Affairs, will retain its identity as a standard-setting and regulatory authority with responsibility for meeting Australia’s official requirements for residential and office accommodation overseas.
  3. The Bureau’s approved establishment totals 65 positions of which 49 are filled.
  4. Officers of the Bureau will become members of the Department of Foreign Affairs administrative staff. Many of them were in fact recruited from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Bureau.

Aged Persons Homes: Government Subsidy (Question No. 745)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Italian Community Service Fund and the Council on the Ageing have criticised the Government’s decisions to alter the subsidy on aged persons’ homes to allow$4 for every$1 spent on aged housing but to leave the maximum limit of the subsidy at 59,000.
  2. Is it also a fact that, without an increase in the limit of the subsidy, the alteration of the basis upon which the subsidy is paid will be of little additional assistance, particularly in view of the serious erosion that inflation has caused in the real money value of the $9,000 limit.
  3. Will he consider increasing the maximum limit.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The maximum subsidy payable under the Aged Persons Homes Act was increased from $5,200 to$6,000 per single unit as from 1 April 1974 and an additional subsidy of up to$1,600 per unit introduced for land. The Government also gave approval for the maximum grant payable under the Aged Persons Hostels Act to be increased from $7,800 to $9,000 per person (or$1 1,400 where purchase of land is involved) also to take effect from 1 April 1974. The increase under the Aged Persons Hostels Act requires an amendment to the Act which the Government intended to enact during the Autumn Session of Parliament, but was prevented from doing so by the double dissolution.

The Government has announced its intention to increase the rate of subsidy payable under the Aged Persons Homes Act from $2 for $1 to $4 for $1. Based on the present upper cost limit for subsidy purposes, i.e., $9,000 (or $11,400 including land), this will increase the maximum subsidy for a single unit from $6,000 to $7,200 and the additional land subsidy from $1,600 to $1,920. The organisations referred to by the right honourable member have suggested that the abovementioned upper cost limits, which were increased from $7,800 to $9,000 (or $11,400 including land) as from 1 April 1974, should now be increased again. The Government is giving consideration to this submission in the context of the present economic situation, the excessive level of demand prevailing in the building industry and its many other competing commitments.

Meals-on-wheels Service (Question No. 751)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice:

  1. What is his attitude to the view of the Council on the Ageing that inflation has severely eroded the ability of the meals-on-wheels service to continue the standard of its service. (2)Is it the intention of the Government to accept the Council’s view that there is a need for the Government’s subsidy of 20 cents to be increased; if so, when will the subsidy be increased; if not, why not.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. I am aware of, and completely sympathetic to, the difficulties with which meals-on-wheels services are being faced because of rising food costs.
  2. The amount of the subsidy payable under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act was increased in last year’s Budget. It will be one of many matters under review in the preparation of this year’s Budget.

Commissions, Committees and Task Forces (Question No. 544)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Further to the answer to question No. 514 of 21 March 1974, in which he indicated that he proposed to bring up to date at the end of the Autumn sittings the list of all commissions of inquiry, committees and task forces that have been established since 2 December 1972, has the information been brought up to date.
  2. If so, will he incorporate a copy in Hansard.
  3. If not, when will the information be ‘brought up to date.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) See the tables which I incorporated in Hansard on 2 August 1974, pages 1053-4.

Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (Question No. 833)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. Is recognition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam under consideration by the Government.
  2. If so, has an inter-departmental committee been established to consider the matter. <3) What departments are currently considering this question.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The question of recognition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam is not currently under consideration by the Government.
  2. and (3) No inter-departmental committee has been established to consider this question.

Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (Question No. 835)

Mr Peacock:

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

Did Australia recently vote at an International Red Cross conference in Geneva to exclude the representative of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The International Committee of the Red Cross is to convene a meeting of Government weaponry experts at Lucerne, Switzerland, from 24 September to 18 October 1974. Australia, along with other countries, was invited by the ICRC to notify in writing by 31 July whether or not it was in favour of participation by experts nominated by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South VietNam. The following is the relevant extract from the Australian reply: ‘Australia could not support the participation by experts nominated by the PRG authorities acting as a government, and would have to abstain if, as is assumed, this is the question that the ICRC has put to governments. Australia would have no objections, however, if the PRG were invited to nominate experts to attend the conference as observers with the right to address the conference’.

The Government’s decision followed a review of policy concerning attendance by the PRG at conferences where humanitarian issues are to be discussed. It reflects a change from the position taken at an earlier conference held under ICRC auspices, the Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law convened in Geneva from 20 February to 29 March 1974, when the Australian delegation voted against a proposal to seat the PRG as a full i.e. governmental, member of the Conference. The Australian delegation would, however, have supported the participation of the PRG at that earlier conference in an observer capacity.

Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (Question No. 837)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. Has the Minister for Overseas Trade made representations to the Minister calling on the Government to recognise the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam ‘(2) If so, when were the representations made, and how frequently have they been followed up. i(3) What has been the reaction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to these representations.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Minister for Overseas Trade has not made any formal representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs calling on the Government to recognise the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam (PRG). The Minister for Overseas Trade has made clear on many occasions in public that it is his personal view that Australia should move to recognition of the PRG. However, he has also said that he recognises that a decision on this matter would need to be taken by the Government. The question of recognition of the PRG is not currently being considered by the Government.
  2. and (3) See answer to 1 above.

Foreign Policy (Question No. 646)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he state at his press conference on 9 January 1973, when asked why other Ministers were making outbursts against United States policy, that there will be no further statements on foreign policy except by himself. ‘(2) Is it a fact that the subject of Australian recognition of the so-called People’s Revolutionary Gov ernment of South Vietnam was discussed at a meeting between the Minister for Overseas Trade and representatives of the People’s Revolutionary Government in Peking not long after, and that the Minister for Overseas Trade made statements about it.
  2. If the position is as stated, was the Minister for Overseas Trade authorised (a) by the Government or (b) by the Prime Minister to hold these discussions with .the People’s Revolutionary Government and North Korean representatives.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– 1, 2 and 3. See the Foreign Minister’s answer to Question No. 837.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 August 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740802_reps_29_hor89/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant