House of Representatives
18 September 1974

29^th Parliament · 1^st Session

NOTICE OF MOTION
- Censure of Whitlam Government
WHITLAM GOVERNMENT
- Motion of Censure
PETITIONS
- Child Endowment
- Universal Health Scheme
- Australian Capital Territory: Self Government
- National Health Scheme
- Mr Georgi Ermolenko
- Palace Hotel, Perth
- Pornographic Literature and Films
- Baltic States
- Jervis Bay: Heavy Industry
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA
SCHOOLS COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION
PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
ALLEGED INDEMNITY PAYMENTS INVOLVING MARITIME UNIONS
- Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
- Ayes………. 61
- Noes………. 51
- Majority……. 10
WOOL TAX BILLS
- Second Reading
TENNANT CREEK HOSPITAL
- Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act
BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1974
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1974
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
- Mr Speaker,
PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1974
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM
PECUNIARY INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT
- Proposed Joint Committee
ADJOURNMENT
- The Parliament- Defence- Cities Commission- Steel
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
- Department of the Northern Territory: Research Grants (Question No. 81)
- Department of Overseas Trade: Appointment of Women (Question No. 98)
- Department of Services and Property: Appointment of Women (Question No. 104)
- Department of Tourism and Recreation: Appointment of Women (Question No. 124)
- Department of Education: Foreign Aid Functions (Question No. 139)
- Northern Territory: Price Control (Question No. 153)
- Australian Government European Awards Scheme (Question No. 156)
- Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises (Question No. 161)
- Applications for Migration to Australia (Question No. 181)
- Public Service: Office Space (Question No. 231)
- Australian Government Office Accommodation (Question No. 232)
- Overseas Students (Question No. 244)
- Australia’s Trade Relations: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 273)
- Department of Overseas Trade: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 330)
- Family Law Bill (Question No. 338)
- Western Australia: Building Workers Industrial Union (Question No. 343)
- Department of Services and Property: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 345)
- Australian Industry: Sick Leave (Question No. 360)
- Tertiary Education (Question No. 371)
- Merrys Lane, West Launceston: Sale of Commonwealth Land (Question No. 386)
- Australian Industries Council (Question No. 431)
- Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 435)
- Department of Tourism and Recreation: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 451)
- Unemployment (Question No. 467)
- Australian Public Service: Flexi-time (Question No. 468)
- Australian Capital Territory: Land Lease Procedures (Question No. 485)
- Australian Capital Territory: Leases for Residential Housing (Question No. 488)
- Australian Capital Territory: Allocation of Land (Question No. 489)
- Australian Capital Territory: Housing (Question No. 491)

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

page 1447

NOTICE OF MOTION

Censure of Whitlam Government

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given on 23 August by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) as a censure motion for the purposes of standing order 1 10. 1 take it that the notice of motion will now be called on.

page 1447

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Motion of Censure

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I move:

That the Government be censured for its avoidance of the processes of debate in the House of Representatives when the country is alarmed about unemployment, industrial strikes, vacuum in leadership and properly expects that these issues be debated.

The Government ought to be censured. The censure motion ought to be supported and will be supported by everybody on this side of the House. If there were any members on the other side of the House who had the slightest commitment to the parliamentary system, they also would censure the Government. Notice of my motion was given on Friday, 23 August. For reasons as yet unexplained- it was said that it was a brilliant stroke of strategy on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in Cabinetwhen all about him were saying that he could not have his way on economic matters, he decided that he would like to try to have his way on some sort of minor piece of strategy. So he decided that he would call the Parliament together for one day. That one day sitting was for the purpose only of passing the Trade Practices Bill and the Roads Grants BUI. In the middle of the highest number of strikes on record since the Depression, in the middle of the highest inflation rate we have known for over 2 decades, in a vacuum of leadership and with the whole of the Australian people confused and uncertain and not knowing where we are going, the Prime Minister’s contribution to that day’s debate was 11 words. Those 1 1 words were: ‘Mr Speaker, I ask that questions today be placed on notice.’ That was the contribution he made. I would be quite surprised if he said anything more in the Caucus or

Cabinet meetings in the building up of this Budget that was brought down last night. In fact, he clearly abdicated from any sense of leadership in the economic affairs of the country. The poor Treasurer (Mr Crean) has been completely steamrollered. Only one man, Dr Cairns, with the support of his Caucus mates, bears the responsibility.

The normal procedure is for a censure motion to be debated immediately. That is what we expected. It is now quite clear that the Government was prepared to accept this notice of motion as a censure motion in the terms of the standing order, as the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has said. Can anybody possibly reconcile the attitude of the Leader of the House today when he says that he accepts the censure motion in the terms of the standing order when on 23 August, when notice of the motion was given, the Leader of the House refused to accept it and refused to allow it to be debated? Because he refused to allow it to be debated I moved:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the immediate debate of the notice of motion given by the Leader of the Opposition on 23 August.

Every member of the Government voted against that motion We wanted to bring the matter on for debate there and then. Every member of the Government voted against the proposal. Now they come along today and say: ‘Let us have the debate’. Earlier on that day, 23 August, the Prime Minister had, as I said, abandoned question time. It was a very unhealthy precedent for the Parliament to be assembled and the Government to protect itself by abandoning question time. He knew the significance of it; he knew it very well. I think he felt ashamed, as he ought to have, depriving the Opposition of question time.

Mr Nixon:

– I do not think he did. He was not ashamed.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My colleague, the honourable member for Gippsland, says that the Prime Minister is incapable of feeling shame. It is just a question of judgment. The Prime Minister certainly ought to feel shame The only issue is whether he feels it. Any other man would be ashamed of himself. The abandonment of question time on that day was an act of selfprotection so that the Prime Minister could avoid answering questions. It was an avoidance of responsibility. Also he wanted to protect some of his Ministers from answering questions. It was an abdication of accountability of the Government to the Parliament.

That same morning I raised a matter of public importance in accordance with the Standing

Orders. I did it in a perfectly proper way. I wrote a letter to you, Mr Speaker, as is the appropriate method, and said that a matter of great public importance had arisen. Under the Standing Orders it should have been debated for 2 hours. The matter was:

The alarming decline of confidence in the community arising out of the Government’s inability to handle the deteriorating economic situation which has been created by its own policies, and contributed to by the conflicting statements of Ministers, the Prime Minister’s abdication of leadership and the rapidly worsening employment situation.

– I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Lloyd:

Last night, using the latest technological advances in the electronic field, I in Canberra participated in a television program together with Mr Hawke who was in Melbourne. Mr Hawke acknowledged the truth of the fact that seasonally adjusted figures for unemployment today reveal an unemployment level of 134,000 as compared with the highest level of unemployment when we were in office, which was 1 1 7,000. The level of unemployment under this Government has already exceeded the highest level under the former Government, and done so handsomely. Last night, Mr Hawke said: ‘Unemployment will get worse before Christmas’. Mr Hawke went on to make this interesting remark: ‘Not only will unemployment get worse, but if unemployment gets to 3 per cent the trade union movement will require the Government to present a supplementary budget. That supplementary budget will require the Government to increase Government spending even more and will require the Government to relax the credit squeeze, put more money into the community and reduce interest rates. ‘

What I want to know is this: If that is what the trade union movement is going to do when unemployment reaches 3 per cent of the work force, why does it not require that to be done now? On the admission of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Overseas Trade know- in fact, any member of the Labor Party or the Labor Government who knows B from a bull’s foot knows- that unemployment in Australia will increase. They know that. Why is not action taken now? Why is there an acknowledgement by the President of the Australian Labor Party, the same man being President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, that this Budget will not reduce the level of unemployment; this Budget will increase unemployment; and this Budget will create greater inflation- inflation of at least 20 per cent? Why do the Australian people have to go through this state of affairs just for the sake of political dogma on the part of the Government? Why do the people of Australia have to go through it? When this motion was moved on 23 August all the history of this Parliament would have required the Government to bring the matter on for debate then. Instead of that, the Government let it go and did not even bring it on at the first opportunity.

Mr Speaker, you have just warned me. If you intend to throw me out for this I will have to take it, but the fact is that you moved immediately against the honourable member for Mackellar when this House reassembled. The Government left it until today- a day after the House reassembledto bring on my censure motion. Why did the Government do it? Because it wanted this spurious Budget, this Budget like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, to be brought down first. Then today the Government wanted to avoid any questions. Is the Prime Minister prepared to give me an undertaking now -

Mr Young:

– Wolf in sheep ‘s clothing?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am sure that you will excuse the interjection, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister give me an undertaking now that we will have question time at the end of this debate? There is a matter of public importance to be raised by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It appears on today’s program and it reads as follows:

The failure of the Government, in formulating the terms of reference for the royal commission into alleged indemnity payments involving maritime unions, to include-

1 ) Charges that the Minister for Transport had approved the indemnity payments 12 months ago.

The silence of the Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Transport from 26 July to early September when publicity was given to indemnity payments.

They were silent even though it was happening -

The failure of both Ministers to take appropriate action under the law.
The indemnity payments admitted to have been made to the Waterside Workers’ Federation.

I ask the Prime Minister by interjection- I am sure you will forgive him, Mr Speaker- whether he will give me an undertaking that that matter of public importance will come on to be debated today. There is not an answer.

The reason this censure motion has been brought on now is that the Government wants to use it to avoid question time and this matter of public importance. That is the reason for it. Mr Speaker, the plain fact of the matter is that everybody in Parliament, Jerry on the front door- I am so glad to welcome him back and to see him in good health- every attendant in this House, every person around this place, every honourable member, every senator, the Clerks and Hansard know that there was no possibility of having yesterday’s program made clear to us yesterday. Then this morning we were told that there was to be a certain program. It was like an episode of ‘Blue Hills’ in the party room this morning with messages coming back such as: ‘Daly is in Caucus. He cannot get out. He thinks this is on. He thinks that is off. He thinks this is on. ‘ It was supposed to be a threat against the Opposition, saying: ‘Unless you behave we will bring on your censure motion’. What an extraordinary thing to do. The Opposition wanted it to be brought on. It wants to expose the Government for what it is and that is that honourable members opposite could not raffle a duck in your electorate, Mr Speaker.

We were supposed to debate the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill today. Now the Government does not know what it is going to do with that Bill. It is in so much mess that it cannot debate it today. We were going to debate the Australia Council Bill. The Opposition prepared for it. It is ready to go ahead with the Australia Council Bill. But information has been given to the Opposition by persons close to the power centre such as the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). He is close to the power centre. He is next to the red light. The anger, the fury, the pretended looking! He said that the Australia Council Bill will not come on for some time into the future. We are ready to go on with it. Why are we not going to debate it? It is very important. It is important to the people who have been here this week talking to me and my colleagues about it. But the Australia Council Bill has just drifted off. Why? I want to know. We are very anxious that a lot of things should be done in the arts field. There is a tremendous number of people who thought that the Labor Party had the answers on arts and who are now totally disillusioned. And expressions of the sort that it is reported the Prime Minister used in the Caucus yesterday in relation to artists are quite surprising for people who thought that they could trust his interest in their welfare.

Wheat stabilisation has gone. We could not know what was going to happen. What we wanted to do on 23 August was to debate the economic issues. Strikes: The figures we had at that stage were 4 million man days lost for the first 5 months of the year- the greatest loss of man days since the Depression.

Mr Peacock:

– And that was only for starters.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– And that was only warming up. In June, July and August quite clearly the figures are going to add to it. What are we going to do about that? Last night the Treasurer who made a far more understandable comment about industrial strikes than he did about economic reality, said, well, you know, we are going to have strikes, it’s just that the fellows feel they have to take strike action to protect themselves against rising prices. He was then asked what price rises there are going to be. There is a 20 per cent inbuilt Budget inflation? The average weekly wage earner is going to get a 22Vi per cent wage rise and he is going to have 20 per cent price inflation, which leaves him a narrow band of 2Vi per cent. Out of that 2Vi per cent he is going to have to pay State tax’ increases and his own income tax increase, which is to go up by 46 per cent- 46 per cent extra tax. He is going to have 2Vi per cent of his wage increase left after deducting the 20 per cent price increase from the 22 Vi per cent wage increase.

Mr Peacock:

– The winner of the duck would have to pay capital gains tax on it.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-As I am reminded, Mr Speaker, if he won the duck that was being raffled it would be a capital gain and he would have to pay tax on it These are the sorts of things we wanted to talk about on 23 August. These are the things we are going to talk about today. These are the things we are going to talk about in the debate on the Budget when it comes up. We have got these positions which are quite clear. We want to debate the economy; we want to disclose what a sham the Government’s policy is; we want to disclose that the Budget is an inflation Budget; we want to expose that the Budget is an unemployment Budget. It will increase inflation, it will increase unemployment. We want it to be known that the leader of the trade union movement, the President of the Australian Labor Party, has said that if unemployment gets to 3 per cent he will require of the Government that it bring down a supplementary Budget. If the Government had been sensible enough to listen to our debate on 23 August it would still have had time to save itself from the Budget it has brought in. That is what we wanted to do on 23 August. To protect itself the Government said: ‘We will not have the debate. We will not let you talk about it’. Today, to serve its own interests, the Government has permitted debate on this censure motion to proceed. Presumably one can only take silence from the Prime Minister as meaning yes or no and he did not even nod his head when I asked him whether we would have question time this morning. I did not hear any noise from him at all. I did not hear any noiseeven when he shook his head. I repeat: Is there to be a question time today? Why is the Prime Minister protecting his Ministers from answering questions?

Yesterday the Minister for Transport, Charlie Jones, gave the State Labor Government of Tasmania to use some terminology- ‘a nice old serve’. Yesterday the Minister for Defence was sitting in this House feeling desperate. My friend, the honourable member for Wilmot was looking quite different yesterday when he was being called the ‘Mafia, the Godfather’. He looks quite different today but he could not have enjoyed the proceedings yesterday.

Is the Prime Minister protecting his Ministers? Has he decided not to have question time in order to protect the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) from answering questions ? He is the man who will be Acting Prime Minister ‘ of this country for 10 or 1 1 days. Is this to enable him to be protected from answering the question that was posed yesterday by my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes) the shadow Minister for Defence, who spoke about the inability of the armed forces to sail ships, put aircraft in the air or to have the tanks moving because of a fuel shortage? My colleague said yesterday that this was a disgraceful situation. The Minister for Minerals and Energy, who is to be the Acting Prime Minister of this country, said they were not going to have fuel because the Government did not want to have any industrial disturbances. The Minister said he does not want any industrial disturbances but he has industrial disturbances at a higher level than they have ever been since the Depression.

Mr Speaker:

– Order! The right honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Order! Is the motion seconded?

Mr Anthony:

– Yes. I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

- Mr Speaker, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) was as empty as the motion. The motion was seconded by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) who had his wits so much about him that you, Mr Speaker, had to call twice to ask if the motion was seconded. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition had to be taunted on 23 August to put his motion at all. He had nothing to say then and in the intervening weeks he still has not collected anything to say. The motion was tough and it was offensive. One thought the Leader of the Opposition was rearing to have a go at the Government but he has just filled in half an hour, wasting the time of the Parliament and the people. He had nothing to say on 23 August and he has had nothing to say today.

When a censure motion is moved it is usually moved at the outset of the day’s proceedings. In those circumstances, 2 things can happen: Either the Government accepts the censure motion forthwith and suspends all other business till it is disposed of or it forthwith adjourns the House till the following day when it deals with the motion in priority to all other business. The Leader of the Opposition did not give his censure motion at the outset of the sitting day on 23 August. He did it later that day after wasting a couple of hours. Surely it was not expected that yesterday morning, with the condolence motions and the Budget coming on, we should suspend the day’s proceedings. We have taken this censure motion in the ordinary way- at the first available sitting. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, did not realise he had left his motion on the notice paper. He could have taken it off yesterday or he could have taken it off before yesterday. He did not realise until the blue paper was circulated an hour before we sat that he had still left this footling motion on the notice paper. In an hour the Leader of the Opposition could not make up for all the lost days since 23 August when he put this motion on the notice paper. He had nothing to say then, he has nothing to say today. The only memorable thing I suppose is that he was trailing his coat, gyrating in his seat and taunting you, Mr Speaker, in his usual manner. He was trying to become a martyr by being offensive to the Chair. He is a man without matter; a man without manner.

The normal procedure with a censure motion is for the man who seconds it to follow the mover immediately. The Leader of the Country Party did not follow immediately. He apparently had to be reminded that he was the seconder. Accordingly I have the opportunity to follow immediately and then to get on with the business of the Parliament- of the Government elected to rule the country- in the terms of the notice paper and the blue program sheet which has been circulated. There is enough business on the notice paper and on the blue sheet to keep us fruitfully engaged for the rest of the day, the rest of the week and the rest of the year.

What an extraordinary motion is this motion which the right honourable gentleman was taunted to put in writing on 23 August. What an exquisite sense of timing he showed when he moved it. Honourable members will recall the circumstances. This House had been recalled for a special sitting to deal solely and specifically with 2 Bills of tremendous importance- Bills which had been victims of Senate obstruction. They were the Trade Practices Bill and the National Roads Bill. The Trade Practices Bill contained crucial and highly necessary improvements to legislation which the Leader of the Opposition himself introduced as AttorneyGeneral 7 years before. The Bill could have been passed and been in operation a year ago. It was necessary to set the legislation in operation as soon as possible. It now is in operation. The National Roads Bill is a redemption of promises to take the first steps towards a national highways program. These were promises I made before the election in December 1972. This Bill was to replace legislation which expired at the end of June this year. It was legislation which would have been enacted but for the double dissolution and it was necessary to deal with it promptly to justify the continued granting of moneys to the States which had been receiving those grants in anticipation of the legislation passing. The Government acted promptly at the earliest point to deal with the amendments which the Senate had made to these 2 vital pieces of legislation. Because of Senate obstruction we had to recall this House for that special purpose that day.

The Leader of the Opposition on that occasion said that he wanted to discuss the economy. He has repeated that same phrase today. He did not deal with the economy in general. He did not deal even with the specific terms of his censure motion moved on 23 August. Are they no longer relevant or are they still relevant? If they are no longer relevant he should have acknowledged that fact. If they are relevant he should have gone in and blasted us. The special sitting took place in the very week that Cabinet was meeting to frame the Budget. The Budget was delayed for a month by the election forced by the Opposition, caused by the unprecedented refusal of Supply by the Senate. The Budget was delayed because of an election which the Opposition lost and in which the people of Australia once again confirmed their support for this Government’s program. Had it not been for that election the debate on the economy which the Leader of the Opposition wanted last month on 23 August would already have been in full swing. The Budget would have been introduced 10 days previously. We would have been having a debate on the economy and on the Budget in the proper place, in the proper manner and at the usual time. We would even have had by that time- 3 days before he moved this censure- the benefit of his own speech on the Budget. This is a speech for which we are now all waiting with bated breath but we have to wait 6 more days and 6 more nights. By allowing this motion to proceed today we thought we would do the Leader of the Opposition a favour by giving him a trial run for next Tuesday night. We have heard it and he has had it. The Parliament and the nation have had the opportunity to know how empty he is, how vapid are his views and how phoney is the policy of the man who did not lose the last election.

I assume that by moving this motion last month the Leader of the Opposition wanted the Government, then in the middle of its preBudget discussions, to have the benefit of his views. Can anyone doubt after hearing him today that we would have been wasting our time? Of course, a number of other interesting things were happening that week in August. It was, for instance, the very week that the Mainline Corporation crashed. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Country Party in their speeches on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to debate this motion on 23 August warned us about the terrors of the terrible things that our socialist policies were supposed to be doing to the economy. I suppose Mainline is an example. Last Sunday night the Managing Director of Mainline, Mr Baker, blamed his failures on socialistic policies- that in some way our attitude to free enterprise was responsible for Mainline ‘s collapse.

In the same breath this spokesman for free enterprise blames the Government for not giving Mainline $3 5m of the taxpayers’ money to prop up this company in which the principal shareholders are die largest life assurance societies in Australia and the nominees of the largest banks in Australia. The top business people in Australia make a mess of this vast company and they now suggest that they need $35m of the taxpayers’ money to prop them up. That is sturdy free enterprise for you. I remember the remark of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) that the policy of the Country Party is to capitalise the gains and socialise the losses. Now we have an extension of that philosophy- the Government should bail out a company destroyed by its own mismanagement or misjudgment, its cupidity or stupidity.

I mention the Mainline affair because there is no doubt that its collapse contributed in a thoroughly damaging way to an atmosphere of panic and confusion which was being deliberately created in the first weeks of August by the Leader of the Opposition, by some sections of the Press and by rumour mongering in business circles. Certainly throughout the Mainline affair the Australian Government -

Dr Forbes:

– Government policy had nothing to do with it?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Oh, my back! The Australian Government was interested in keeping the construction activities of Mainline going, both because of our position as a customer and because of our concern for the economy, the workmen and sub-contractors involved, but we cannot accept the attitude that when gambles of the sort that Mainline embarked upon fail to come off the Government suddenly acquires obligations to save entrepreneurs from the consequences of their own folly. I assume that the great free enterprise Party opposite endorses that attitude.

– It would have been a good idea if you had looked at the newspapers this morning.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable member can go by road but he will have to pay for it himself in future. He is a man who takes 3 days to go 60 kilometres in an Avis car to his own property from the nearest aerodrome. Quality and equality of services are now provided or denied by the community. Individuals- even the wealthiest- can no longer provide them. For business we have laid the foundation for renewed business confidence; confidence that the economy will continue to grow. For the States we have provided massive increases in grants of all kinds. They will receive the largest increase in both direct and special purpose grants ever. They will receive 36 per cent of the total outlays in this Budget. The Budget provides for a 32.4 per cent increase in total expenditure, and 39.5 per cent of that increase will be in payments to the States. Therefore, in these 3 fundamental respects the Budget provides the soundest possible and the strongest possible foundation for real restraint, for real responsibility, for real co-operation, for real confidence.

Let me elaborate in these 3 great areasemployee confidence, business confidence and community confidence. I take it that the State governments still belong to the Australian community. It is easy enough to identify the need for wage restraint if we are to combat inflation effectively. Draconian measures, conventional measures, the Liberal measures of Fadden, Holt and Snedden, measures to create massive unemployment, might, of course, achieve some retarding of the rate of inflation. Too many of those who advocate such a course really want to break the back of the trade union movement. This Government will not have a bar of such a course. It is absurd to place the whole blame for the present inflation on employees. Price increases cause wage increases just as much as wage increases cause price increases. The Government is acting on both prices and wages simultaneously. In order to break the wage-price spiral it is very much in the interests of employees to cooperate with us in this attempt. Inflation threatens jobs, particularly in industries which compete with imports. It also threatens jobs in industries which are so uncertain about future costs that they are reluctant to invest. Inflation destroys the value of employees’ savings. It undermines the quality and availability of community services which are the very foundation of a better, more equal society. Inflation causes uncertainty and even fear from which few members of the community can be exempt, least of all employees and their families. So there is every reason for co-operation from employees and their organisations and associations.

We have provided in this Budget a good basis for that co-operation. The Treasurer acknowledged last night that there has been considerable uncertainty on the part of business about the future, but there is growing evidence that business has in fact over-reacted. In order to combat demand inflation which we inherited, the Government introduced over a period of time a series of flexible measures to remove excess demand pressures. As the Treasurer said last night, we have largely succeeded in removing those pressures. If we had not taken the steps which we did- every step opposed or criticised by the Opposition- inflation would be much worse than it now is. Partly because of over-reaction there are signs of slack entering into the private sector. The tax cuts and new expenditures in the Budget are designed to take up that slack. The Budget ensures that increased unemployment already in the economic pipeline will be quickly contained and reversed.

From the day we were elected the Government has acted consistently to improve real living standards. Some of our measures, such as support for a substantial increase in the minimum wage, have” already improved those standards outside the context of the Budget. The Budget itself reinforces these policies. Substantial pension increases are proof enough of how much the real standard of living of pensioners has improved under a Labor Government. When we took over the pension was worth 20 per cent of average weekly male earnings. It is now worth 24.5 per cent. The home mortgage interest tax deductibility scheme which now comes into operation is graduated to benefit lower income groups. Further measures were announced in the Budget. The income tax schedules will be altered to reduce taxation on lower and middle income groups, with the largest benefit for incomes of $6,000 a year. The Treasurer also announced substantial concessions for low income and single income families. We have given substantial benefit to breadwinners, whilst withholding the concessions from others who happen to be in the lowest income tax scale, that is, the second or third income earners. Furthermore, in this Budget we have abolished broadcasting and television licence fees- a poll tax and even more regressive than indirect taxes. The redistributive effect of the Budget is reinforced by the nature of expenditure.

Beyond the substantial improvements to welfare services many areas of expenditure are specifically geared to maximise benefits for low income earners. Our major innovations are based on the principle of need. The most is given to areas where people need it most. This is the principle for the allocation of funds for schools under the Schools Commission program, for child care, for local government under the Grants Commission, for community health centres and hospitals, for welfare housing, for area improvement programs, for the Australian assistance plan and for Aboriginal advancement. A major objective of the Budget is to indicate clearly to the people of Australia that when the Government calls for restraint it expects the first and main burden of restraint to be accepted by those best able to bear it.

Mr Sinclair:

– I take a point of order. Is the Prime Minister free to give us his speech on the Budget today or should we wait until the appropriate occasion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member knows that the debate on a censure motion is very wide. The Prime Minister is quite in order.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It was typical today, and I have no doubt that we will find it also typical next Tuesday night, that the Leader of the Opposition will not say what privileges he would preserve, what government services he would subsidise and what benefits, including those endorsed by the people at 2 successive elections, he would defer. All that the Leader of the Opposition is left with is pious cries about leadership. He is a great adherent of the Fuhrerprinzip. He is always calling for a national conference. A national conference would be fine if it were a realistic means towards national co-operation.

What we have done in the Budget is something far more meaningful than a mere national conference, whatever that really means. We have established the conditions for national cooperation. What possible hope for national cooperation or national restraint would there be if we had adopted the method that the Leader of the Opposition and previous Liberal and Country Party Treasurers adopted designed to create mass unemployment? What possible basis for national co-operation would there be if we were to indulge in the sort of union bashing which is our opponents’ stock-in-trade? What possible basis for national co-operation would there be had we not been prepared to call for some sacrifices- they are certainly not punitive onesfrom the very strongest and wealthiest in the community? What possible basis for national cooperation would there be if we were to punish the vast majority of Australians who will benefit under our community and welfare program?

What possible basis for national co-operation would there be if, in the name of fighting inflation, this Government had chosen to break the promises it has twice made to the Australian people; if this Government were gutless enough to destroy the program which the people of Australia have twice endorsed and demanded?

As to the idea of the Leader of the Opposition on leadership, all I can say is that it would be a damned sight easier for this Government to give leadership in our area of responsibility, governing Australia according to the program on which we were elected, if he were able to give some leadership in his area of responsibility. If he could control his wild men in the Senate, if there were one Liberal Party in this Parliament instead of two, this Government would be much better able to get on with the job for which it has been twice elected and much better able to carry out its program which has been twice endorsed.

As the Treasurer said last night, we share with all our major trading partners problems of economic management unparalleled in modern times. We are doing as well in coping with inflation as most of them and better than any of them in preventing unemployment. But I venture to say that not one comparable democracy has to deal with the obstruction, the pettiness, the unpredictability, the time-wasting energyconsuming nonsense which this Government has suffered at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition’s nominal followers in the Senate. We could live with this more readily if we could at least identify some principle behind their conduct or the conduct of their nominal leader. But the sheer cussedness which allows Liberal and Country Party senators to impede legislation which their parties have themselves proposed on trade practices and off-shore minerals, the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Superior Court, which opposes legislation twice and thrice endorsed by the Australian people, which causes the needless time wasting of the Joint Sitting- dragging out the inevitable to the bitter end- is beyond rational explanation. Before the Leader of the Opposition can credibly talk about leadership, let him serve his apprenticeship. Let him do some on-the-job training, or better still, some adult retraining.

The fact is that the delay in the Budget caused by the elections, the interruption of normal parliamentary processes, the turbulence and obstruction of the Senate during the special session during which 18 Bills were rejected, the continuing attempts at disruption of proceedings of this House, are all contributing to a loss of faith in the parliamentary system and thereby contributing to and deliberately creating public uneasiness and confusion. All this must be laid at the door of the Leader of the Opposition. He condones this conduct because he cannot control it. It is his responsibility; it is up to him to show some leadership. It comes with the job and if he cannot do it, he should find somebody in his Party who can. Where on earth he should look defies even my ingenuity. In the meantime, let us get on with our job. Let us, the Government and the people of Australia get on with the job of fighting inflation, restoring full employment and building a better Australia. The Budget is a mighty good start. I commend it and I reject the Leader of the Opposition’s frivolous motion.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 52

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 62

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 1.16 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1458

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Child Endowment

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:

Child Endowment received by families has declined relative to average earnings so that today it is about 20 per cent of its value in 1 949.

The Interim Report of the Australian Government’s Commission into Poverty recommended a substantial increase in Child Endowment as a way of alleviating poverty.

This report pointed out that increased Child Endowment deserved priority and would be advantageous to the community in the long run.

It specifically recommended increasing child endowment from 50 cents to $ 1 .50 for the first child; from $ 1 .00 to $2.00 for the second child; from $2.00 to $4.00 for the third child; from $2.25 to $7.00 for the fourth child; and to $8.00 for subsequent children.

Your petitioners humbly request that the Government increase Child Endowment in the September Budget.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren, Mr Armitage, Mr Donald Cameron, Mrs Child, Mr Fairbairn and Mr Fisher.

Petitions received.

Universal Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley, Mr Kerin and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Australian Capital Territory: Self Government

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

The humble Petition of the undersigned residents of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth-

1 ) That Australian citizens are already governed to an excessive extent, and to introduce machinery to provide self-government for the Australian Capital Territory would exacerbate this situation.
That the cost of providing self-government for the Australian Capital Territory will have to be borne by residents of the Australian Capital Territory, and that self-government should not be instituted without consulting by means of a referendum those who will have to bear the cost.
That any provision of self-government would be meaningless unless it received popular support from the residents of the Australian Capital Territory, and the measure of the extent of this popular support could be best obtained by means of a referendum.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government not to proceed with the introduction of selfgovernment for the Australian Capital Territory until the residents of the Australian Capital Territory are consulted, by means of a referendum, on the issue.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Enderby and Mr Fry.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government, in formulating the terms of reference for the royal commission into alleged indemnity payments involving maritime unions, to include-

Charges that the Minister for Transport had approved the indemnity payments 12 months ago.

The silence of the Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Transport from 26 July to early September when publicity was given to indemnity payments.

The failure of both Ministers to take appropriate action under the law.

The indemnity payments admitted to have been made to the Waterside Workers Federation.

Discussion of any matter within the terms of reference of the royal commission would be an infringement of the sub judice rule and therefore out of order. This is supported by rulings in the House that it is not in order to discuss the proceedings of a royal commission or matters coming before it, and that the Chair would be failing in its duty if it allowed any discussion about matters which had been deliberately handed to the commission for investigation. In the light of these rulings I have considered the matter proposed by the honourable member for Wannon. While I consider that parts (1) and (3) do not come within the terms of reference of the royal commission I consider that part (4) is covered by paragraph ( 1 ) of the terms of reference. Accordingly I rule part (4) of the matter submitted by the honourable member to be out of order. I now call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion on the matter in the form that I have determined to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on. (The doors being locked)-

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

Sinclair) do not realise that when I sit down in about 30 seconds the motion will be automatically put. Only about 25 minutes are allowed for these debates. Very few members of the Opposition know a standing order and do not even know how to break them properly, but they try to get around the Standing Orders they do not know under the guise of putting up a great public stand. The Government would support this motion if it were worthwhile doing so, but we have no intention of doing it today. Consequently, I ask that the motion be rejected.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to. I think the noes have it. Is a division required? Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, if the Minister in charge of the House would allow it I am quite certain that the Opposition would be delighted to accommodate the Minister for Transport on this subject.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Bring it on tomorrow and we will be delighted to debate it with you.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The Minister has kept silence.

MrSPEAKER-Order!

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 62

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1469

WOOL TAX BILLS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent five Wool Tax Bills-

being presented and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and
b ) the consideration of the Bills in one committee of the whole.

I explain to the House that this is a procedural motion only. Its purpose is to permit the introduction of and subsequent dealing with the S Bills as one question instead of a series of the same type of procedure. There is no intention to go beyond the stage of the second reading speech today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

WOOL TAX BILLS (Nos 1 to 5) 1974

Bills presented by Mr Crean, and together read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

These Bills will amend the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964-1973 to provide for an increased rate of wool tax. They are a consequence of arrangements for the marketing of the 1974-75 wool clip that have been approved by the Government and agreed to by the Australian Wool Industry Conference. Our intention to introduce them was announced by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) on 29 August.

Wool tax is currently levied at the rate of 2.75 per cent. At this level, it represents wool growers ‘ contributions towards the financing of programs of wool research and promotion and the administration of the marketing functions of the Australian Wool Corporation.

The additional tax proposed by these Bills will be imposed at the rate of 5 per cent thus bringing the total levy up to 7.75 per cent. The 5 per cent increase will apply from 2 September 1974 to 30 June 1975 and the revenue from it will be appropriated for use by the Australian Wool Corporation to meet any losses it may incur during the 1974-75 wool selling season from the maintenance of a firm floor price of 250 cents per kilogram clean for 21 micron wool in the wool market. Legislation will be introduced at the first opportunity to provide for the creation of a separate fund for this purpose.

The date from which the increased rate of tax will apply coincides with the date of the resumption of auction sales for the 1974-75 wool selling season. Tax will, therefore, be collected at a common rate for all wool sold since the introduction of the minimum floor price. The Wool Tax Act (No. 1 ) imposes a tax on shorn wool produced in Australia and sold by a wool broker. The other Acts ensure that where shorn wool is not sold by a broker it is subject to tax at some other point. The need for 5 separate Acts arises from a constitutional requirement that laws imposing taxes should deal with one subject of taxation only. I commend the bills to the house.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 1470

TENNANT CREEK HOSPITAL

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Mr LES JOHNSON (Hughes-Minister for

Housing and Construction) (3.16)- I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Proposed redevelopment of Tennant Creek Hospital.

The proposal involves provision of new medical and paramedical facilities, new administration area, new ward block, new kitchen, accommodation units, and alterations to certain existing facilities to provide a modern efficient hospital to meet the needs of the growing population in the district. Construction will be of load bearing brickwork, with steel deck roofing and aluminium framed windows. The building will be air conditioned, and the site will be landscaped to provide a pleasant environment. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $4.83m at June 1974 prices.

The Committee concluded that many of the existing buildings have outlived their usefulness, that a number of recently erected buildings can be integrated into the new facilities, that there is a need for new and expanded hospital facilities, that the site was suitable, and that the work should proceed to construction. The Committee also noted that the Department of Health should take care to ensure that staff accommodation of sufficiently high standard is available to attract the personnel required to operate the hospital efficiently. The designs for the accommodation units meet this requirement. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

-In supporting this motion, I say how pleased I am that the proposed redevelopment of the Tennant Creek Hospital has finally reached a stage where it appears that construction can go ahead. I say that with reservations because Tennant Creek is in an isolated area. The transport situation in the Northern Territory being as it is, I hope that the proposed work can be completed in the estimated period of 3 years. If the conditions that we experienced this year are repeated and the railway line and the roads in South Australia, particularly the northern areas of South Australia, and Central Australia are subjected to the conditions that they have experienced this year, I am afraid that the completion date will slip back. If the rate of inflation in Australia is to increase at an estimated 20 per cent or so, as the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Government seem to accept, the cost of the redevelopment of the Tennant Creek Hospital will increase beyond the present estimate of $4.83m. But the project is under way.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You still want it, though?

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

-We certainly still want it. I hope that the Government will do something about seeing that it does not fall behind in the time schedule and that the Government will not just throw up its hands in the way it is doing about the economic situation in the country today. Since you ask me, I tell you this. I see that there is to be a staff of 27 or so at Tennant Creek. I do not know where they are going to be housed. In the civil works program there are proposals for some flats and houses but in Tennant Creek at this moment there are seven school teachers under a cloud. They do not know if they are going to stay there or not because there is no government accommodation and the Government has done nothing whatsoever about it. I believe numerous requests have been made to the Minister for the Northern Territory for him to go there and answer those questions, amongst others, which are going to be put in the town tonight. No doubt they will be overjoyed to hear of the hospital. There are millions of dollars of improvements to be built in Tennant Creek but I do not know who is going to staff them, because there will be no houses there for the people to live in. So while we are grateful to have a hospital, it is unfortunate that the Government has done nothing about the housing position in Tennant Creek during the time it has been in office. If you look at the civil works program you will see in the proposed works that there are houses to be built. How long it will take to build them I do not know.

I am glad the hospital is to be started. The history of medical services in Tennant Creek has been a very checkered one, not only in the time of this Government but for all the time I have been in the Territory. It has always been in doubt whether there would be one doctor or two doctors, a dentist, or any medical facilities at all in Tennant Creek. As you know, it is 320 miles north of Alice Springs and it is quite ridiculous to consider going down there to have a tooth filled or to get minor medical assistance. This hospital is certainly not before its time and I hope it will be completed in something like the estimated period.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I was pleased to hear the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) say that he welcomed the hospital at Tennant Creek, even though he did endeavour to turn his speech into a political one. He mentioned the lack of housing and was critical of the Australian Government for this. He then endeavoured to raise a question that has been raised frequently about the increasing cost of building due to escalating costs in the community generally. He seemed to convey that this might even be used by the Australian Government as a reason not to proceed with the hospital. I ought to remind the honourable member in the first place that this very motion means that the hospital will proceed. When the Public Works Committee took evidence in Tennant Creek to determine for itself whether the works were justified I do not remember seeing the honourable member for the Northern Territory at the hearing, even though the town is in his constituency. Nor did I find that he had been in the town recently or for some time.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I go there more frequently than he does.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I have been there only once in my life. From what I can determine from the locals, I have been there more often than the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Keogh:

– Once more.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes, once more. If the honourable member had ever bothered to visit the Tennant Creek area, and he speaks glibly about the lack of housing there and seems to blame the Australian Government for that lack, and if he had spoken to the people who live there, as I and other members of the Committee did, he would know that there are plans to build houses there and that the reason the houses are not built has nothing to do with this Government but with the system the honourable member protects to the nth degree, the private enterprise system. Private builders will not go to Tennant Creek unless they have a contract worth more than $2m. The contract for the housing requirements was worth a lot less than $2m. I was told by locals in Tennant Creek that it is for that reason- I rely on their word- that contractors will not take on work at Tennant Creek. How that fact can be twisted and responsibility for that situation be laid at the feet of the Government I do not know.

I turn to the other specious issue the honourable member for the Northern Territory raised about the costs of building rising. I think he plucked some figure out of the air. He referred to a cost of $6m or $5m- some weird figure derived from a simple arithmetical calculation in a very complex situation. It is absolutely fallacious to say that the completion date is date X, that building costs are rising by 20 per cent per annum and that one should increase the base figure by that percentage over the period it takes to construct the building. I invite the honourable member for the Northern Territory to speak with officers of the Department of Housing and Construction and to get his arithmetic correct.

There is another side to the equation. What in fact happens is that because of clauses in the contract, any rises and falls that occur after the contract has been let are calculated rises and falls. They are calculated on the basis of award increases in wages- not sweetheart agreementsand on the increased cost of materials. These take place as progress payments are made and such payments diminish as the work proceeds because work has been done. To take a simple increase of 20 per cent and add that to the original estimated cost of $4.5m and say that it will now cost $5m or $6m is like trying to compare a horse with a cow- both have 4 legs but there the similarity ends.

The other fallacy in the argument is that while costs are rising so is income rising. Whilst it may be true that on today’s values the building is worth $4.5m or $4.83m, the volume of money available is at that level at this time but at the time the building is completed more funds are available, so the relativity remains. No relativity is lost. The honourable member for the Northern Territory tries to confuse the community and the House by quoting only one side of the equation. He quotes the side where costs are rising and ignores the side where incomes are rising. If he is the arithmetical genius he is trying to prove himself to be, I suggest he do the sort of calculation I have mentioned and perhaps explain the position later. If the relativity between costs and income remains, I suggest he should apologise. He should not take figures and multiply them so that they become larger in total or grander in scale and say it is bad, because that is only looking at one side of the picture and it gives a distorted view. One could be tempted to think this was some sort of dishonest argument.

The proposed works undoubtedly are needed, as would be recognised by anybody who had seen the hospital at Tennant Creek. I do not think the hospital ran down in the last 2 years; it has been running down for a long time. The buildings are in a deplorable state. Some were erected as early as 1914. They are still standing and are being used. There is a need to build a new hospital at Tennant Creek. In fact there has probably been such a need for a long time. The need has finally been recognised. The Public Works Committee went to Tennant Creek and took evidence from citizens of the town and from the client department and the constructing department, deliberated on the matter and came to a very firm conclusion that the hospital ought to be built and work should proceed. I point out that it is only some weeks- in fact, in terms of sitting days of this House one could almost say it is only some days- since the report was presented to this House. I commend the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) on coming back so quickly with the expediency motion. It shows his bona fides. It shows his integrity and its shows that he believes that the hospital ought to be built as quickly as possible.

Both the Public Works Committee and the Minister have honoured their obligations. The Committee has brought in the report and the Minister has brought in as quickly as he could the expediency motion so that the works can proceed. I commend the works to the House. I could not conceive of any argument that could be put forward by anybody in this House, including the honourable member for the Northern Territory, that the works should not proceed. Yet if anybody were to oppose the expediency motion that is what he would need to say. If he did not say that he would be using this debate only as an opportunity to put a point of view about something that is not relevant to the construction of the hospital at Tennant Creek. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that interjections cease and that the honourable member for Wakefield be allowed to make his speech without outside assistance.

Mr KELLY:

-I imagine that it is a proper function of the Committee to mention in the report not only the estimated cost at the time but also the amount at which it is expected to go to tender. I have been taunted from across the chamber about whether that was done when I was the Chairman of the Committee. It was well within the power of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton), who was then the ViceChairman of the Committee, to insist that it be done. When the previous Committee discussed this matter and divided on it, which was the first time I had ever known it to divide on party lines, I said that I felt that it was a function of the Public Works Committee to advise the Parliament of the estimated cost of the work when it goes to tender. I think that it is a proper function of the Public Works Committee to do so. Irrespective of whether it is done in the report, I think it is proper that the Committee should find out the amount when it hears evidence on the proposed work. The Chairman of the Committee would know that the Committee has been following that practice. He has been quite responsible in his chairmanship and has made no attempt to stop the Committee from finding out.

Surely it is a function of the Public Works Committee to tell the Parliament as near as it can what the work is going to cost. It is not sufficient to tell the Parliament what it has been estimated that it will cost when it goes to the Committee because more than one stage is involved. This proposed work is a comparatively small project, but it will take 10 months to document it and 27 months to do the building. By that time the cost of the project will have increased. I am not trying to make political capital out of this matter. I am just trying to measure the increased cost. Is it or is it not a function of the Public Works Committee to advise the Parliament of the cost of the work when it goes to tender? There are many other things that could be said about this matter. It would have been better if we had concentrated on the principles behind the work and the problems of starting and completing it in the area as well as all the problems that are inherent in the escalation of costs that make it so difficult to plan for long term progress in the area. We have to recognise that as being a fact of life until we can bring the problem of inflation under control. Everybody recognises that there is a problem. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) recognises it today. Everybody knows that we have a problem. Until we overcome the problem of inflation it is the job of the Public Works Committee to advise the Parliament- not the Government, which is a servant of the Parliament- of the estimated cost.

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

– in replyWithout displaying too much blood pressure in relation to this matter or getting overpettifogging or pedantic about it, I want to acknowledge, first of all, that there are cost problems in the Northern Territory. Everybody ought to be aware of them. They should not be brought into this Parliament with an intended element of surprise. The economy is buoyant. In the more remote areas it has become more difficult to attract tradesmen. There have been instances of a contemporary nature where the Government has been unsuccessful in attracting tenders even. Someone can criticise that situation if he likes. He may prefer a more depressed economic situation. He may prefer to have workmen waiting at the door and equipment stacked up and contractors lined up and ready to dance to his bidding. I know that is the philosophy that has been upheld in Liberal-Country Party components of the political spectrum in Australia for a long time. This Government just does not choose to do it that way. One of the consequences of our kind of emphasis is that sometimes in these difficult or remote areas of the Northern Territory there are some problems and these are reflected in cost acceleration. There has been cost acceleration. I have referred to it in presenting the motion. It is no secret. No one has to be ashamed of it. It is a fact of life in Australia and all over the world. It was in the light of this fact that the previous Committee examined this proposal and the estimate was $4.5m. Then the present Committee looked at it and the estimate at June 1973 prices was $4.83m.

I know that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) has another idea about prices. Some members of the Opposition like to cause prices to look as high as they can possibly make them look. I noticed that he expressed an opinion by way of a motion moved in the Committee to the effect that the final cost could rise to $6m when tenders are called. Whether he was right or wrong I am not prepared to speculate but I know he did not have the numbers to have that motion accepted. So the majority of members of that Committee apparently decided that his estimate was wrong.

Mr McLeay:

– They just happen to be Government members.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There it is. Whether they are Government or Opposition members there are rising costs in the Northern Territory. I hope that knowledge will give somebody satisfaction. I give it with my compliments for what it is worth to them. Costs are rising in the Northern Territory and that is one of the problems that we encounter. So I hope all those gentlemen who get agitated are placated by that acquiescence in which I have indulged.

The other matter is a minor one but it is worth mentioning. I think from the remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) the House would get the impression that the Government had been completely derelict in its responsibility for housing at this hospital. That is not the case. As the honourable member for Wakefield has indicated, some exotic provisions of the type which never used to be made have been made. This is a very contemporary innovation. We now provide high standard accommodation wherever we carry out a Government project whether it is for servicemen, students or nurses. The honourable member for Wakefield and I, and also the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and some other honourable members, can claim some credit for causing a break-through in this. We have lifted the whole standard. I thought the honourable member for the Northern Territory would have known a bit more about this. We have pioneered this in the Northern Territory especially; we have certainly adopted this policy for the community college and a number of other projects in the Territory. The project for the Tennant Creek Hospital is a very real and effective initiative being taken by the Government. In it we will provide a village for nurses’ accommodation with 24 motel-type units. They will be airconditioned and similar to the standard already established at the Alice Springs Hospital. They will be bed-sitter type units with self-contained facilities such as toilets and cooking arrangements.

Mr Kelly:

– And they will not cost any more than the old type.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As the honourable member has properly said by interjection, the resourcefulness of the Department of Housing and Construction is such that we will be able to produce this fine product at a cost less than that of far more inferior basic arrangements. In addition to this village complex to be set in a parklike surrounding will be an old ward of the hospital which is being turned into 3 self-contained 2- bedroom fiats for paramedical personnel. There will be 3 residences on the site, one each for the secretary, the medical superintendent and the senior officer of the hospital. Two of these residences already exist and the third is being built as pan of the project. So quite a generous amount of consideration has been extended to accommodation matters.

Unquestionably there are accommodation problems in Tennant Creek. Maybe the honourable member for the Northern Territory can use his influence among the Legislative Councillors in the Territory to carve up the cake in such a way that Tennant Creek will get more of the Housing Commission allocation than it is getting at present. Quite frankly I think the time has come when a serious look should be taken at the need to fulfil hostel accommodation requirements in the Northern Territory for employees of my own Department, for employees of the Postmaster-General’s Department and for other employees who perform duties of a governmental nature. I was intrigued to hear several times today the old political cliche that the Opposition wants to socialise its losses and capitalise its gains. We find that this applies to housing acivity which is claimed to be the prerogative of private enterprise. But when housing is required at places which are incapable of attracting a dividend to shareholders and where high profits cannot be made, as is the position in Tennant Creek and many other parts of the Northern Territory, honourable gentlemen opposite are quick to say that this is not a private profit making situation but is an obligation for the Government. They want to turn the rough stuff over to the Government but they never want to see some effective public enterprise that will cause taxation to be reduced.

The proposition to build the Tennant Creek hospital has been talked about for decades. It has been needed for decades in an outpost of empire where some of our most valuable mineral exports are produced. The people in this area are pioneering and enterprising. The Government already has extended to those people many embellishments to their living arrangements which they never enjoyed before. Many public initiatives are being taken in the area including a new health centre, a new primary school and high school, a new power station and sewerage in the town. Here we have yet another milestone in this cavalcade of achievements for the Northern Territory which have been introduced in the short time that the Labor Government has been in office. I commend the motion to the consideration of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1476

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1429), on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

-This Bill seeks to abolish the broadcast listener’s and television viewer’s licence system. The licence fees have become relatively expensive to collect. In fact in 1 973-74 it cost $3.4m to collect the fees throughout Australia. According to calculations another $llm was not collected despite the activities of some 2,400 inspectors policing the licensing system. Another feature of the history of this matter is that last year 23,000 people were prosecuted for not possessing a broadcast listener’s or a television viewer’s licence.

The Opposition believes that the move to abolish the licences will be welcomed by the community. The Opposition also believes that at this stage of sophistication of administration the costs of administration, the costs of collecting revenue and the costs of policing the system run into a situation of imbalance. I believe, and I am sure that many other honourable members believe, that the Government must realise that it should not restrict this kind of thinking to only this area. It is very strange that the Government has expressed a firm view in very strong words that a business undertaking should be financed by receipts and be related to the expenditure required for its operation. It has indicated its principle in relation to post and telegraph charges. It has indicated it in relation to many other charges. Yet we have the curious situation where it selects this area for a different approach and in fact states that it cannot be treated as an operation that can be qualified as a business operation. Had the revenue situation continued the collections for the remainder of this year would have been about $50m or, in a full year, $67m- a very considerable sum of money.

Let us think of the considerations that must arise in this matter. We are on the eve of the advent of colour television in Australia. There will, of course, be a great disparity in the matter of those who are privileged to have the opportunity of seeing colour television and those who will not. Yet had the fee continued everyone would have been paying the same licence charge. On that ground alone there was a need for some consideration of the matter. Undoubtedly, if the revenue aspect had been continued, the Government would have been increasing the licence fee. So, taking all this into account, at least some of the anomalies are being overcome by the one action of removing the licence fee. The anomalies, of course, are those in which we find an increasing number of listeners and viewers who are not privileged to get a satisfactory reception of one kind or another, where there is an increase in the expenditure, so far as the cities are concerned, and a loss of those standards in the more distant parts of Australia.

So, the action of the Government is to be commended in this respect because it creates a situation of equality in the matter of the required enforcement of a charge. Perhaps it does not produce complete equality in terms of expenditure when it is related to who pays in this instance. Of course, it will now be the taxpayer. The situation is interesting when one looks at the day to day needs of the running of a great national service which provides our national radio and television media in this country. The costs must be escalating at an enormous rate. Yet under the privileges that have been followed for a considerable time a statutory body of the sort that is involved here is not required to reveal the full details of its budgeting and the full details of its expenditure in terms of a breakup that gives a picture of what is being spent in what area.

We recall the great issue that arose some two or three years ago when the previous Government sought to have a closer look at what the budgeting and the expenditure might be. Before it could even get this off the ground there were protests in all directions, led by those who now sit on the Treasury benches. I am one who has always been in full support of those who want to get the best standard and give leadership in the provision of a national service. I think it is essential that they be given support to perform their task in the national interest. But it is a strange contrast indeed, in what we now are told is open government, when we still do net have a situation where the full details are made known to Parliament and made known to the public in the community at large.

I just want to express this comment. I hope that the removal of the licence fee will not be an open order in certain directions for the provision of a national service or for expenditure to escalate without regard to what it means in terms of the drain on the taxpayer. After all, to some extent a limitation was imposed in the past through the revenue limitation in terms of collections from Licence fees. This was supplemented to some extent from other sources such as tax revenue. Now we have the situation where there is no restraint of that kind. This Bill contains nothing which indicates that there will be some kind of control mechanism. I hope that what I am about to say will not be regarded as a statement that criticises in any way the action being taken to remove the licence charge; on the other hand, I hope that it will be regarded as a responsible comment on the administration of what is one of the most vital services provided to the public. I am bound to point out that there is as a consequence of this action an even greater disparity in what is paid for by taxpayers or through the revenue coming to the Government for public service provisions- in other words, services to the community and what is regarded as a business undertaking and which therefore necessitates revenue to cover its expenditure. So, I mention again telephone services. In very many Australian homes the number one requirement is a telephone. Radio and television services rank second to that requirement. This is because there are people who are dependent on that kind of link between their home and the outside world. These people live in a situation where the telephone is their one means of defence and security -

Mr Morrison:

– I rise on a point of order. May I point out that the Bill that we are debating seeks to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act. It relates to the abolition of licence fees for broadcasting and television services. I suggest that the honourable gentleman is out of order in raising other matters.

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

-A passing reference to an associated aspect would be acceptable. I ask the honourable member for Cowper not to develop that argument in relation to this legislation.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will certainly link up what I am saying with the legislation before the House. I might say that I am a little surprised that the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) should take that point because undoubtedly the aspect to which I have referred is one that concerns a basic consideration in the removal of the licence fee. It is apparent that henceforth a cost of approximately $75m- undoubtedly this amount will escalate to $ 100m- will be imposed on the Budget as a consequence of this action. I suggest that that is an important consideration. I believe it is right and proper that I should refer to its relationship to other matters that touch upon the community. This relationship is regarded by the Government, in the terms expressed in the second reading speech, as the justification for its actions. So, I am bound to say that in the total scene a need is present to look at the rationalisation of or the relationship to those services which are important to the community. I repeat that this is an important matter but there are others. I hope that this will be a first step in a move to give the community the kinds of benefits that those who depend on these community services really need in this period of inflation, cost escalation and economic mismanagement. I think I would be failing in my duty if I were to say less than that.

It is important that the Government should take a fresh look at what is happening in relation to the national service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. With the rapid growth of population, particularly along the eastern seaboard, circumstances have been created in which very many radio listeners are still restricted to the reception of one effective radio channel. As a consequence, the listening opportunities for these people are affected and the standard of service likewise to these people is lower. If we were to refer to an assessment that has been made in quite recent times, this disparity is pointed up very clearly indeed. It is fair to say that even the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings, whilst not the most popular session on radio, is certainly listened to by a number of Australians. But there are very many people in many electorates in our country who will tell one very clearly that they are not able to listen to the parliamentary proceedings because they cannot pick up the radio signal through which this broadcast is made available to radio listeners.

Similarly, for reasons that are quite apparent and understood by many people television viewing opportunities are restricted. There are great limitations in the coverage that is provided by the national service. The decision to introduce colour television in Australia was made comparatively recently. Once that decision was made, a great cost factor was introduced into the provision of those services and the provision of the means for people to be afforded an opportunity to view colour television through the national service. The same situation applies to commercial television operations. I believe that if there is to be real equality- that is undoubtedly the objective of this measure to remove the licence fee- that equality must be quickly extended to provide equal viewing opportunities to all sections of the community- not just to capital cities, metropolitan areas or the suburbia of Sydney and Melbourne, but to the rest of Australia.

If this is to be the pattern, I hope that it will be done on a fair and equitable basis. I hope that we will not see a repetition of what has been perpetrated through the administration of the Department of Minerals and Energy with respect to the gas pipeline among many other aspects where what might be regarded as a very good relationship between commercial enterprise and the government sector has been wiped aside and something else- a totally government operationhas been put in its place. I hope that this proposal does not mean that henceforth a policy will be perpetrated seeking real nationalisation of the media. If that is what is intended, it would be very wrong indeed. If the only justification for such action is that the public will be paying for these services through Budget provisions as distinct from a licensing system, that would be an even worse approach. We certainly do not want to see that happening.

I return to the precise provisions of the Bill which seeks the abolition of the broadcasting and television licence fee paid by listeners and viewers. The removal of this charge certainly will be welcomed by every Australian who owns and uses a radio set and/or a television set. I think approximately 3.5 million Australians are licence holders. Those who receive some concessions in respect of these services- I think half a million pensioners are involved- in future will not be required to pay any charge whatsoever. They certainly will welcome this move.

We support the measure on the ground that it is action in a direction which seems to make very good sense. But we hope that its whole import will be related to that principle and not to something else. There is no doubt that one of the intricacies of this matter- and of course it is the Australian attitude that is important -

Mr Morrison:

– I thought the honourable member was concluding his remarks.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The Minister is suggesting that there is some need to hurry this debate through. It is all very well for him to get excited, but there are justifications for the Opposition expressing its points of view. Opposition members have the right so to do and I think that we will stick to that right, if the Minister does not mind. I was referring to the precise principle which this initiates. I hope it is the forerunner of many more things based on this worthy principle and is not used as a vehicle to make inroads in another direction. In saying that, I have in mind the many statements we have read in the last 12 months about attitudes to the media, how the media should function, opportunities that should be given for a certain style of media in this country. There have even been suggestions that there should be an Australian Government media service. There is a lot of obscurity about what has been said, but I think it has a very direct relationship to the measure now before the House. So, in welcoming this measure I make the observation that I hope it is not a move that will create by stealth an entirely different system, an entirely different attitude, an entirely different premise upon which the Government, through existing instrumentalities or others it may create in the future, will manage the control and the opportunities for the operation in this country of the style of media we have become accustomed to, a national service and a commercial service, because both have been important in the past. They are obviously of a standard today that is a credit to them. We have no criticism of the national service and we have no criticism of the commercial service in terms of generalities. Certainly there are areas one can examine and find grounds for criticism.

I must not conclude without reminding the House of action taken in the last few weeks by the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), who is sitting at the table. That action was to make a very vicious attack on one section of the community in relation to advertising. If my memory serves me correctly, a commission of inquiry was appointed to investigate the television advertising of soap.

Mr Morrison:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the honourable gentleman so correctly pointed out, this matter is the subject of an inquiry and I think it might be ruled to be sub judice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-If what the Minister says is correct, and there is an inquiry on that matter, at the moment it might be wise for the honourable member not to make comments in relation to it.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the reasons for the appointment, not to the details. I am sure I did not use any words that touch upon the ingredient of the inquiry and what it will be expected to do. Again I mention that there is an inquiry based on certain statements by the Government and certain premises, which does give some indication of intentions and attitudes. It is directly related to considerations which arise in respect of the matter now before the House

Finally, the measure is a pace setter by which, I hope, we will have a means of ensuring that this House, particularly at Budget time in the future, has some direct reference to this matter. We do not want to find in the future a single entry in the Budget termed ‘Expenditure on national service broadcasting and television’. We want to see something that gives an accountability to Parliament, something that goes a little beyond that. I make an appeal to the Government to ensure that this change also brings in its wake other changes of the sort to which I have just referred The Opposition supports the measure.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-I will not keep the House very long. I am not terribly impressed with an interjection I think I heard from the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) that he wants to rush this Bill through. Though I would like to support the principle, at the same time I support my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson), in the comments he has made. I compliment him on his speech in view of the very short notice he had to prepare for it. I am sorry there has not been an opportunity for more honourable members on this side of the chamber to speak on the subject. I agree with the honourable member that we are not opposing the Bill as such, but I believe this is an opportunity for us to ask a few simple questions. What is the real reason for this measure? I have read the comments the Treasurer (Mr Crean) made last night and I have read the Minister’s second reading speech. To be frank, I do not think they explain the reasons for the legislation. Last night the Treasurer said that the national broadcasting and television service is a service provided to the community as a whole and the Government believes that the cost of the service should therefore be met from general taxation revenues rather than through a licence fee. That is all right, but how do you associate that with the measure introduced last night by the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) in relation to increases in postal and telegraph charges? If one is a service, so is the other. The Minister said that from 1968 to 1971 under a Liberal Party-Country Party Government the fees raised met something like 75 per cent of the expenditure of the national broadcasting and television service and if we were to recover a similar percentage of expenditure today we would have to increase the fees by 50 per cent. I do not dispute that, but it seems rather odd that on the one hand we would have to increase fees to maintain the status quo but we will delete them, whereas on the other hand, when it comes to general telephone and postal charges, because we are running short of chips we have to increase them.

To return to my original point, what is the real motive behind this? An amount of $50m or so in revenue will be lost. What effect will this have on the service provided by the various national television and radio stations? If we are going to reduce the service then I regret having to support the Bill. It is very easy for some honourable members to suggest that we are advancing tremendously in this field and that colour television is just around the corner. There are numerous places throughout Australia which have not got black and white TV, let alone colour TV. I venture to say that there are many places receiving reasonable TV coverage today which will not receive colour TV when it is introduced. What effect will the reduction of the income of the Department have? Can we have an assurance from the Government, from the Minister, that despite the reduction of $50m in income the service will continue? With the honourable member for Cowper, I support this issue, with a certain amount of reservation. If it is good enough to have a reduction in one section of the Postmaster-General’s Department on the ground of service to the community then it is good enough to have it in another section. Instead of having an increase in postal and telephone charges there ought to be a reduction by perhaps a similar amount.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1479

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 July (vide page 224), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-I welcome the opportunity, before so many interested honourable members from both sides of the House, to speak to the Asian Development Fund Bill 1974. This Bill seeks parliamentary approval for a contribution of $18. 15m to the Asian Development Bank, the specific purpose of which is the establishment of an Asian Development Fund. The Opposition Parties support the passage of the Bill. It is consistent with the priorities of successive Liberal-Country Party governments for programs of economic and technical assistance in developing countries. The Asian Development Bank, otherwise known as the ADB, was established in 1966 to provide practical expression to the policy initiatives of the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East.

From its quite recent beginnings it has developed rapidly and provided a major stimulus to economic development in the Asian region. It operates as an autonomous international development institution, pursuing goals that complement rather than replace other existing assistance programs, such as those of the World Bank. Like the World Bank it has been designed to provide both technical and financial assistance.

The dimensions of the Asian Development Bank’s loan facilities clearly illustrate the importance of this organisation to the overall pattern of Asian development. The Bank commenced lending in 1968, and by the end of 1973 it had lent $US 1,376m. This sum represents approximately one-third of the total amount lent by multilateral agencies to the developing countries of ECAFE. If the comparison over the same 6 years period is made on the basis of lending from ordinary capital resources, the Asian Development Bank’s contribution of $US 1,056m equalled some 50 per cent of total funds allocated. The Bank’s steadily increasing loan facilities, together with a recent 150 per cent increase in authorised capital, indicates clearly that the Bank will continue as one of the principal agencies of development assistance in the region. The Bill before the House represents a commitment to the objectives and purposes of the Asian Development Bank, which is shared by all parties in this Parliament.

The purposes of the Bill are to provide funds for the establishment of the Asian Development Fund. It is proposed that this Fund should have an initial working capital of US$525m which is to be provided by contributions from the developed member countries of the Asian Development Bank. Australia’s proposed contribution is approximately 5 per cent or $ 18.5m, to be paid in Australian dollars, at a parity with the American dollar fixed in November 1973 The loan will be provided on terms of an issue of non-interest-bearing promissory notes, to be encashed on demand when the funds are required. Payments will be made in two stages: Two-thirds by 30 June 1975, committed by 31 December 1974, and the remaining US$9m committed by 30 June 1975 and paid over by 3 1 December 1975.

The funds so provided will be used to finance loans at less than ruling commercial rates of interest. There is, of course, an urgent need for such concessional financing, particularly at present. In most of the developing member countries, assistance on conventional terms has entailed, and continues to entail, a growing problem of debt financing. In several member countries, in fact, the debt service ratio already exceeds 20 per cent of export earnings. Softening of lending terms is therefore a matter of great urgency. In recognition of this need, the donor countries of the Asian Development Bank agreed in principle during 1973 to the establishment of the Asian Development Fund. This Bill proposes to give formal ratification to that agreement.

In supporting the Bill, the Opposition Parties are also in agreement with the Government that the funds should be granted unconditionally, and not constrained on a tied grant basis. Unfortunately, there is an increasing world trend towards development assistance on a tied grant basis. It has been difficult on occasions to distinguish some countries’ aid programs from their export promotion policies. Grants and loans are too frequently made for specific purposes, and have been tied to the purchase of goods and services in the donor country, so as to create no charge in that country’s balance of payments. Such action, of course, greatly reduces the flexibility of programs and restricts the policy options open to developing countries.

The acute needs of most Asian countries for economic assistance have been exacerbated by the worldwide spiral of inflation. The real value of development expenditure has been rapidly eroded by inflationary forces. In addition, the net effect of the change in parities of major international currencies has contributed to worsening terms of trade. For these problems there appears to be no ready or immediate assistance. Indeed, they have been aggravated by the worldwide liquidity problem, created by the failure of world monetary reserves to expand on a pro rata basis with the increase in world trade. These recent monetary phenomenons make solutions to age old problems of under-development, mass poverty and unemployment even more difficult to find in the present circumstances. They give greater exigency to programs of development aid, which have long been recognised as an important international obligation of the Australian Government.

In 1972 the former Government spent $228m, or 0.59 per cent of the gross national product on foreign aid. The Labor Government in 1973 spent $202m or just 0.44 per cent of gross national product. As inflation grew by 13.2 per cent during 1973, Labor’s aid contribution, in real terms, was substantially lower than these figures suggest. There was, in fact, an implicit inflationary erosion in the real value of aid of almost $27m, compounding the impact of the $20m cut in actual expenditure. Given that a high proportion of Labor’s 1973 aid had already been committed by the former Liberal-Country Party Government as part of Australia’s ongoing contributions, Labor’s foreign aid performance has clearly been insufficient and totally inadequate. It is incompatible with the Government’s specific policy pledge to ‘work towards the United Nations’ target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance’.

The present Labor Administration, notwithstanding its loose claims for support for and cooperation with our Asian neighbours, has, in real terms, failed to honour its promises. It has failed to deliver the goods in this area. The clear fact is that in terms of gross national product for the calendar year 1973 Labor cut Australia’s economic assitance program by more than $20m. Budget Paper No. 9 1974-75, dealing with projected outlays for Australian external aid in the current financial year, goes to great lengths to defend the Labor Government’s foreign aid performance. Upon analysis, however, the Government’s attempt to justify its past record is far from credible. The Budget statement indicated that net expenditures on multi-lateral aid programs are estimated to increase to $10,891,000 or 73.8 per cent to a total of $25,648,000 in 1974-75. In prima facie terms, this increase may appear a salutary response in an area of past neglect. But it must be realised that this increase represents nothing more than a belated, if much needed, attempt to restore Australia’s multilateral aid commitment, in percentage terms, to the level achieved by the past Liberal-Country Party Administration in 1972.

Given the massive impact of the energy crisis on virtually every developing Asian nation, with the exception of OPEC member nations, and the increasing incidence of social and economic instability created by war and famine, the current level of Australia’s multi-lateral aid must still be deemed to be very much inadequate against the whole context of need in the countries concerned. Economic and social conditions in most developing nations have suffered a marked deterioration since the Liberal and Country Parties were last in power. I believe therefore, as do all members of the Opposition parties, that Australia must clearly accept its international obligations in these changed circumstances and provide far higher priority to its foreign aid commitments. A holding action at this stage is simply not adequate, both in terms of the past record and, more particularly, against the obvious pressing and overriding needs of the countries concerned.

The Liberal and Country Parties believe that the expansion of Government spending in the field of foreign aid is certainly justifiable. This is not one area of expenditure which falls within the ambit of our proposals for a moderation in the overall rate of growth of Federal expenditures. Foreign aid expenditure will not aggravate domestic pressures of cost inflation. Nor is its quantum effect on total Budget outlays likely to have significant repercussions. Clearly there is considerable scope for expansion of Government spending in this specific and significant area of overall Budget policy. Support for the expansion of Australia’s multi-lateral aid commitments is, of course, in this context not inconsistent with the Opposition’s policy of overall moderation in the rate of growth of Government spending as the net impact of such commitments has a virtually negligible impact upon domestic stabilisation policies. Rather the Opposition’s support for such worthwhile schemes as the Asian Development Fund is a reflection of our continuing concern for the problems of our Asian neighbours and is consistent with our parties long-term commitment to the principles of foreign aid over all regional development. In one of the most comprehensive surveys of Australia’s foreign aid policy the then Minister for Foreign Affairs in the last Liberal-Country Party Government, the Honourable Nigel Bowen, said in 1972:

Aid is more than simply a question of money: It is a complex process of marshalling resources, technical, human and administrative as well as material. It is important that the quality and effectiveness of aid should be as high as possible.

The Opposition parties subscribe to this view and by support for the establishment of the Asian Development Fund we believe that this view will be given continuing and practical expression. We support the Bill before the House.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) has indicated to the House that the Opposition supports the Asian Development Fund Bill which seeks parliamentary approval for a contribution by Australia of $18. 15m, which is approximately US$27m, to the Asian Development Fund recently established within the Asian Development Bank. It is appropriate at this stage to recall the background of this measure. The Asian Development Bank was conceived by the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East- better known as ECAFE- and established for the purpose of lending funds, promoting investment and providing technical assistance to developing member countries and, generally, for fostering economic growth and cooperation in the Asian region. It was formally opened on 19 December 1966. Membership of the Asian Development Bank is open to members and associates of ECAFE and other regional countries and non-regional developed countries which are members of the United Nations or any of its specialised agencies.

The Asian Development Bank’s lending activities are divided into ordinary operations and special operations. From the commencement of operations until 31 March 1974 the Asian Development Bank approved 177 loans for 156 projects in 21 developing member countries totalling US$ 1,467.043m. Projects financed by Asian Development Bank loans cover such development activities as construction of highways, processing of agricultural products and development of fishery fleets, industrial plants, water and power supply, ports, airports, multipurpose development schemes, irrigation, medium and small industries through national . development banks and other intermediary institutions, education and telecommunications- a very broad spectrum of activities. Ordinary operations of the Bank consist of loans made at near commercial rates of interest and financed out of ordinary capital resources. Ordinary capital resources comprise mainly subscribed capital and borrowings. The original authorised capital stock of the Asian Development Bank has been increased on different occasions. As at 31 March this year total authorised capital stock was US$3, 366m, of which US$2, 725m was subscribed by the Asian Development Bank’s 40 member countries. Special operations are loans made on concessional or ‘soft’ terms for projects of high development priority in developing member countries. These projects are financed out of special funds.

Under the Asian Development Bank’s charter it may accept contributions to special funds which it may administer on terms agreed upon with the donors, provided the purpose is consistent with the objectives and functions of the Asian Development Bank. Special funds must be held, used, invested or otherwise disposed of entirely separate from the ordinary capital resources of the Asian Development Bank. Under the ‘Special Funds Rules and Regulations’ adopted by the Board of Directors in 1968, the Asian Development Bank established 3 special funds: Firstly, the Agricultural Fund, secondly, the Multi-Purpose Fund; and thirdly, the Technical Assistance Fund. On 22 May 1973 the Asian Development Bank merged the Agricultural Fund with the Multi-Purpose Fund. However, later in 1973 it was decided to replace the Multipurpose Fund with a single unified fund known as the Asian Development Fund to create a more appropriate and effective framework for financing concessional lending, and it is that fund with which we are dealing under this Bill today.

The Asian Development Fund, which is multilateral in character, is designed to service the primary source of future concessional lending operations by the Asian Development Bank. Previously, concessional loans were financed almost entirely out of the Multi-purpose Special Fund. However, according to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his second reading speech on the Asian Development Fund Bill on 1 6 July this year, contributions to the Multi-purpose Special Fund had dwindled to the extent that in the absence of early steps to replenish Special Fund resources concessional lending by the Asian Development Bank seemed likely to grind to a halt.

The proposals for the Asian Development Fund involve the mobilisation of $US525m in contributions from developed countries in 2 stages. Under the first stage US$350m will be contributed, and the balance of US$1 75m will be contributed under the second stage. I understand that stage 1 recently became effective, and the Asian Development Fund is now firmly established. Australia’s proposed total contribution to the Fund is US$29m or $A18.5m. In line with the overall arrangements for financing the Fund, it is proposed that Australia’s total amount be committed in 2 stages over 18 months or so. The Treasurer has indicated that, consistent with past practice, Australia will use the promissory note technique of payment, which will limit the budgetary impact of the contribution.

According to the 1973 annual report of the Asian Development Bank, when the Asian Development Fund is substantially operative, the Special Fund ‘s resources of the ADB will become a fully effective counterpart of its ordinary capital resources, and the financial structure envisaged for the ADB at its inception will be complete. The report continued:

With these additional resources at its disposal, the Bank will be in a position to mount an organised program of concessional lending for the economic and social advancement of its least developed member countries, rising from the 1973 level of$ 118. 16m to S200m in 1974, and to $250m in 197S. No less important, the Bank will be in a position to extend this assistance on terms which more fully recognise the financial burdens that these countries have to bear, and on conditions that are more flexible and responsive to their needs. This is a challenge the Bank will readily accept. Whether it will have an opportunity to do so depends now upon the ability of the Bank’s developed member countries to come forward with the contributions authorised by the

Board of Governors within the time frame envisaged in the resolutions.’

That was stated in the annual report of the Australian Development Bank last year at pages 28 and 29. We are meeting our commitment and our undertaking with this Bill. It is a very real challenge to Australia. I want to make some remarks not just related to the Asian Development Bank as such but to aid programs in the broad. After all, this is part of Australia’s aid assistance to developing countries. I am not particularly impressed with the record of this Government in that field. Despite the fact that there has been a sizable increase in this Budget, allegedly, for aid programs, it will be recalled if one examines Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) that the actual expenditure last year fell well below the amount that was allocated in the Budget. The Government in fact stands condemned for the way it went about its aid programs in the last 1 8 months. The amount of money given by way of aid programs in the calendar year 1973- of course they are covered neatly by the Budget, because we are operating on a financial year- was less than the amount given by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in the 1972 calendar year.

Mr Street:

– It would be a lot less in real terms.

Mr PEACOCK:

-It would be far worse in real terms because the situation is exacerbated by inflation- a factor which the Government talks about but ignores in reality. Although we in Australia express our comparisons in financial years, the internationally accepted basis of comparison is the calendar year. This Government’s record is condemned by the Opposition because it is just not good enough. To fall below the 1972 amount in 1 973 is in itself enough.

Mr Morrison:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate my learned friend’s interest in developing his theories on foreign aid, but I may remind you that we are discussing a Bill relating to the Asian Development Fund. The honourable member will have an opportunity in the course of the Budget debate to make precisely the points he is now making. I suggest that he is now out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I would suggest that the honourable member for Kooyong tie his remarks to the subject before the House.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am grateful that you have expressed your ruling in that way, Mr Deputy Speaker. The fact that I may express remarks on this matter during the Budget debate or on the Estimates has nothing to do with the fact that the

Asian Development Bank Bill is part of the overall aid program. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not prevented from alluding frequently, as you have requested me to do, to the assistance we are granting under this Bill and how it relates to other aid programs.

I am most grateful for that. When one listens to the people who hold themselves out as espousing the cause of the international brotherhood of socialists, one would think that the benevolence that exuded from the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in 1972 would have been transmitted into action. But in fact, the amount fell below that which the previous Government funded for developing countries overseas. It is right and proper that under this legislation we should be making the contribution for which we gave undertakings. We are executing those undertakings. This aid has to be looked at not merely as a contribution through the Asian Development Bank but also as part of our aid program. It is true that this measure comes in as a Treasury Bill but the Government also claims it as part of its aid program, so the fact that the Treasurer and not the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House, introduces this measure, does not detract from Australia’s aid program. I compliment the Government for executing its duty to the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank by introducing this Bill, but I draw the valid point that Australia’s aid contributions fell below the amount allocated in the Budget. Any person who took an interest in aid programs over the last 6 months would know that the Government has been shovelling money out like a man with a dozen arms trying to get up to the amount that was allocated. Even then the Government could not do it. But at least in this Bill the Government is meeting the contribution that it undertook to make to the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank.

The point I was raising, before the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) interposed with a few remarks, was that not only did aid fall below the amount allocated in the Budget last year, but also its performance in the calendar year 1973 fell below the amount allocated under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. But the important point for people in this Parliament and those interested in aid programs to rememberit is often difficult when measures such as this are brought in by a Treasurer- is. that the effectiveness of an aid program is what counts. It is not the actual amount of money that one gives, it is where that money goes. So although we are executing our duty under the Asian Development Bank, it is the way in which the money is spent which is of primary importance. I will be turning to that point in a moment.

Mr Robert McNamara, the President of the World Bank, has repeatedly given a warning. I shall cite his words, as I have done previously in this House. He said that the benefits of growth are not equitably reaching the poor, and the poor are not significantly contributing to the growth. In other words, in the poorest countries economic growth is least, population growth is fastest and the effects of escalating prices for oil and fertilisers can wipe out economic gains. As aid recipients, poor countries often fail to show improvement in living standards commensurate with the amounts they receive from donor nations. If 75 per cent of development assistance goes to only 40 per cent of the people- this is generally agreed upon- and frequently that 40 per cent is that percentage of the population which needs it least, then the purpose of aid is largely negated. The underdeveloped world faces a crisis which calls for urgent action and not lengthy deliberation by advisory councils and bureaucratic reshuffles, as we have seen to date with the working of the aid agency in this country.

Any government which is using the taxpayers’ money, as we are doing with this measure, to assist developing countries must, regrettably, always take cognisance of political realities. One would like to divorce from political realities the need for developed countries to be able to give money to developing countries. But if a particular country, for whatever reason, were in disfavour with a majority of, for example, Australians it would be a very brave government which then sprang to its assistance with massive financial or other aid. Therefore education within the donor country is necessary. It is, after all, people and not governments that aid programs seek to assist. The needs of those people need to be fully explained if aid programs are to be pursued with the active support of most Australians. Australians also want to know how their financial or other aid is being used. They want to know whether it is getting through to the people who need it and for whom it is intended. Similarly they want to be sure that their aid is not allowing to be syphoned off to other projects funds that normally would be spent on foodstuffs, medical programs, buildings and so on. Those remarks do not relate specifically to what the Asian Development Bank is doing. Its record has been applauded by both sides of this Parliament, and ought to be.

A country in our region which has a member of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank is India. It is in the context of what I have been talking about concerning community reactions that I want to mention India which, as a member nation, has a representative on the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank. It is in that context that the recent nuclear explosion by India could do much harm. India is now answerable for the further proliferation of nuclear weapons by countries which do not yet possess them. We all know that enormous sums are necessary for nuclear research. So inevitably people will start asking where India found the money and whether it would not have been better off spending those hundreds of millions of dollars to alleviate other problems.

I stress that it is not for us to tell India how to run its affairs- or to tie down our aid and assistance with unacceptable conditions. On the other hand, India must realise that from a public relations point of view, if for no other reason, the recent nuclear tests make it that much harder for those of us who believe in and encourage strong aid programs to get our point of view across. It also gives extra comfort to those people- we must recognise that they exist in great numbers in every developed country- who say that aid begins at home and should end there. What is true at a government level also holds true with voluntary agencies. Thousands of Australians are actively engaged in raising money and goods for various private assistance programs. Those people depend upon the goodwill of every Australian. To a large extent that goodwill is fostered by the image that Australians have of a particular country and its needs. That image in turn is most often shaped by the media. If the media starts to question the actions of a particular country those questions soon raise doubts among the general public. It is not that the members of the general public become less generous; they simply become more selective in their generosity. I regret having to cite a country as critically as I have. I have cited India only because it is the most dramatic and recent example of a situation that affects us and could occasion some rethinking.

There is no doubt in my mind that Australia is poised to play a dominant part in aid and assistance programs during the next few years. This will not be so much in the amount of assistance we give but rather in the manner in which we offer it. We must be innovative rather than reactionary. We must be flexible enough to change direction if events dictate change, yet pragmatic enough to realise that our assistance will not always be greeted with wide acclamation or even be seen to receive the recognition that it should. Our satisfaction must be in what such assistance contributes to the overall development and stability of a particular country or region. In other words- the Government could well take note of this- our play should not be to the grandstand but should be an investment in the future of the human race.

It is in that spirit and in that context that we support this Bill, which seeks to provide funds to the Asian Development Fund itself. We trust that the good work of the Asian Development Bank and, through it, the Development Fund will continue. I have made these specific criticisms because I am concerned about the growing criticism in the community of that country which exploded a nuclear weapon without having due regard either to the consequences of further proliferation in other countries or to the pressures on the developed countries, such as our own, which wish to give further funds by way of aid programs but which receive criticism for doing so.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I have only one point to make in this debate, but I believe that it is an important one. I am amazed that it was not made earlier. Foreign aid, whether it is provided through the Asian Development Bank or anything else, has to be paid for through our foreign funds. We have, it is true, sizeable but rapidly dwindling reserves. We are now in the red to the extent of $2,000m a year in our foreign funds. Whatever aid we give has to come out of those funds. We will be giving $ 1 8m. We will be giving it really in the long run not from our own resources but from our overseas creditors ‘ money.

The Bank to which we are subscribing has as a program a contribution by member countries of US$525m. That is a small amount but there is another source of money available. The wealth situation has changed.

In the foreign exchange business we of the Western world used to think of ourselves as being the rich people who are doing the giving. We are now the poor people. The wealth is now to be found in the oil countries. The oil countries, which received help previously, have some kind of relationship or consanguinity with the people who need help. The oil countries have received a windfall of an extra $30,000m a year. It is from them that the subvention should be now coming. They are the rich countries, not the poor ones. We are the poor countries in international exchange, not the rich ones. There should be a complete rethinking on this aspect. The oil countries, which have received a windfall of tens of thousands of millions of dollars a year, should be coming to the party for their cousins- we are giving it to their cousins- and they should be doing so not with a miserable US$525m but should be thinking in terms of providing ten or twenty times as much per year. They should be helping their cousins from their windfall.

I say that we should be putting the hard word on the Shah of Iran when he comes to Australia and telling him that from the immense riches that have come to him through the oil windfallthrough the monopolistic manipulations in which he has engaged- he has a moral responsibility to find not a small amount of money, as this is, but a large amount of money for not one year but every year for the people of Asia- he is an Asian- whom it is his first responsibility to help. I support, as does my Party, this token. But I repeat that we are not really giving our own money; we are giving our creditors’ money because our foreign balances are dwindling and on current account we are now going into the red to the extent of $2,000m a year. We are not giving our own money. We are like, as it were, the directors of the Mainline Corporation making a tremendous gift to the arts in Australia- not giving their own money but giving their creditors’ money. This is what we are doing and we are making big fellows of ourselves for doing it.

While this is happening there is money available. The world has changed. The old concept of the poor countries and the rich countries has changed. We have lost; they have won. They are up about $30,000m every year. While necessarily they will use a great deal of this money for the support of their own people and the raising of the living standards of their own people they owe it to the world to take a sizable slice of this and use it for raising the living standards of their own neighbours, the people for whom this Asian Development Bank was founded and whom it is trying to help. I say that next week when the Shah is in Australia we should put the hard word on him and see that the Shah realises his responsibility from his overflowing coffers now to allocate some thousands of millions of dollars every year for the support of his less fortunate Asian neighbours who do not happen to have oil.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1486

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suspend the sitting of the House until 8 p.m. in order that I may present the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral at Government House. I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me.

Sitting suspended from 5.4 to 8 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I desire to inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the GovernorGeneral at Government House, and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Honourable Sir Paul Hasluck, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.St.J., on the opening of the First Session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament, agreed to by the House on 2 August.

His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:

Mr Speaker,

Thank you for your Address-in-Reply which you have just presented to me.

It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty The Queen the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression.

page 1486

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1273), on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Matters Relating to Papua New Guinea · St George · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 matters?

There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-The Opposition is not opposing these Bills. They form part of the movement towards independence for Papua New Guinea. As I understand it, they give legislative authority to what has been existing by way of delegation from the Minister for Foreign Affairs as the authority under the appropriate legislation, who delegated his authority to the Minister for Mines in Papua New Guinea to handle off-shore mining within the area described by the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill as an adjacent area. There are 2 Bills under consideration. The first is the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill which provides for the repeal of the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act that extend to Papua New Guinea. In other words, this amending legislation exercises reference to Papua New Guinea in the Act. Having done that, the second piece of legislation- the Papua New Guinea Billamends the principal Act by transferring to the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly the power with regard to off-shore mining. This is necessary to ensure that there is no doubt that the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly has absolute power over legislation in respect of offshore mining.

I am not altogether impressed with the legislation that has been presented to the House, but I want to pose a question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Matters Relating to Papua New Guinea (Mr Morrison). I would be grateful if the Minister would answer it. In repealing that part of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act which refers to Papua New Guinea, the amending legislation refers, of course, to the areas designated under the legislation. As I recall, the legislation arose from agreements reached between the Commonwealth and the States. If one examines the report of the Senate committee which examined this matter prior to the legislation being enacted, one finds that there is annexed to that report the agreement which was reached between the governmental bodies, State and Federal. Clause 6 of that agreement indicates that there should be no amendment without the consent of a State concerned

In this instance, Papua New Guinea and Queensland share a boundary. I speak not of the Papua New Guinea-Queensland boundary but of the areas designated in the legislation. In the legislation they are referred to as adjacent areas. As I understand it, clause 6 of the agreement provides that the State of Queensland ought to be advised of the amendments which are covered by the legislation which is before the House tonight. I would ask the Minister whether that State has been duly advised. I do so not merely because it is a term of the agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the States but also because we have at the present moment a very sensitive issue to deal with. It is not merely the .sensitive issue of the movement of Papua New Guinea towards independence but the sensitive issue of the border between Papua New Guinea and Queensland. I would not like to think that the feeling between the Commonwealth and the Government of Queensland is exacerbated in any way by this Government not advising the Queensland Government that it is taking this move. I would have thought it would have been a prudent step, whether or not it is covered by the agreement, to advise the Queensland Government. But from a formal sense it appeared to be prima facie that there was a necessity in clause 6 of the agreement to advise the Queensland Government. I would be most grateful if the Minister could advise me before he concludes his reply on this legislation whether in fact that occurred.

The second matter to which I wish to refer is the speech made by a former Minister for National Development, Mr Fairbairn, who was then and is now the honourable member for Farrer. It is recorded on page 1945 of Hansard that he said on 18 October 1967 in his second reading speech on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 1967:

While dealing with adjacent areas I should make brief mention of certain agreements which have been reached in relation to the adjacent areas of Queensland and Papua and to some small islands and their continental shelves in the Coral Sea. Prior to the commencement of these negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States, Queensland and Papua had issued adjoining exploration permits with boundaries conforming to the boundary between Queensland and Papua. These permits have been accepted by the companies in good faith and work has been going on in the areas concerned. When it became necessary to consider these boundaries from the point of view of this joint legislation it was found that the application as between Australia and Papua of the median line principle would have resulted in part of one permit and something like half of another permit which has been issued by Papua being brought under the jurisdiction of Queensland, thus resulting in a reduction of the area of continental shelf under the authority of the Territory.

The Government considered that any transfer of part of these titles back to Australia- no matter how justifiable in terms of logic- might be misunderstood in Papua and New Guinea and in any case that such action would be inconsistent with the high sense of responsibility which Australia displays in working to bring this Territory towards self government.

He went on to say at a later paragraph:

The foregoing arrangement is, we think, a sensible one and as a result I am glad to say that both the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments are agreed that the boundaries of the existing permits issued by Papua will be left undisturbed.

There is an important principle involved here. You have a contentious boundary between Papua New Guinea and Queensland- a matter on which the Government of Papua New Guinea has expressed itself in very forcible terms, particularly individual Ministers in that Government, indicating that the boundary between Papua New Guinea and Queensland ought to be moved south. The Queensland Government must be involved constitutionally in any change to that border. The Constitution states that if borders of States are to be changed the governments of those States or the people of those States have to give agreement. If the border is to be changed they must be involved therefore under the Constitution. You have a situation here giving power to the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly over an area that is not consistent with the boundary between Papua New Guinea and Australia. It ought to be borne in mind what was agreed to in 1 967- as was said by the then Minister for National Developmentthat there is now a variation in the capacity at law of the Papua New Guinea Government to grant permits for off-shore mining, and that the area designated for it to do so is different from the boundaries between the 2 countries. Because the Government of Queensland agreed with this area when the agreements were reached in 1967, the Opposition is not prepared to oppose the legislation.

So I would like firstly to be assured that the Queensland Government has been advised that this legislation was coming into the House, and I would like to think that what had been agreed to before is in the minds of those who are concerned with the border between Papua and New Guinea and that the legislation does not place in jeopardy any of the negotiations over the border itself. I say that because the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), when he first came to office, sought unilaterally to move the border between Papua and Queensland or, as he put it, Papua New Guinea and Australia. I have pointed out that he has no constitutional right to do that, and I trust that he will not use any of this legislation as an argument against the government of Queensland. It was indicative, of course, that Queensland was agreeing to matters solely within the province of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill. So, delinquent and all as this Government has been in many areas, I would assume that it would not break the spirit of those agreements that related to specific measures covered by that Bill. I will return to that matter, though, before I conclude tonight.

I have said that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation because it is part of the transition towards self government and independence. Self government, of course, was reached in Papua New Guinea on 1 December last year. The distinction between self government and independence is broadly that when an administered area reaches self government it is responsible for all the domestic legislation and control of its own affairs within its own borders at that date, but there are certain powers that devolve and remain existent in the metropolitan or controlling power- the administering authority, if you like- and that is the Government of Australia. In the broad they are in 2 areasforeign affairs and defence. But some powers were not transferred on the date of independence, and we are dealing with one of them now. I thought that we would have heard more of the negotiations between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea in regard to these 2 specific areas of foreign affairs and defence before any likely date of independence was announced.

This Government, of course, has been accused by the Constitutional Planning Committee of Papua New Guinea of forcing the pace of independence. It is interesting that the Constitutional Planning Committee should accuse the Government of that, because it is described in the terminology of Papua New Guinea as a radical body, but it has felt that this Government has forced the pace somewhat. I do not enter into that argument at all. I think that overall the Government has responded to the wishes of Papua New Guinea, but it seems to me that it would have been wise to settle all areas prior to independence so that on independence the Papua New Guinea Government would not just in fact be governing in all areas but would be doing so at law.

I am concerned at what will happen when Papua New Guinea achieves independence, whether it be April or May of next year or whatever date the Government of Papua New Guinea has in mind. I would like to feel that matters which are outside the province of the Minister for Science, who is the Minister in charge of Papua New Guinea affairs and the former Minister for External Territories, and which are primarily matters within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) will be put to us clearly and unequivocally. We have heard little from the

Minister for Defence apart from frequent apologies for not being able to do other than say that negotiations are taking place. I will not develop that matter, so the Minister for Science need not take any point of order. I just wanted to flag the fact that I am concerned that for almost 20 months now I have been standing here asking for information about the defence arrangements between Papua New Guinea and Australia, and I ask for it again in the course of this debate because the Minister himself has said in his own speech that this legislation is part of the movement towards independence. I am concerned that we will reach independence and we will not know clearly what the role of Australian forces seconded to the Papuan New Guinea defence force will be.

I return now to the matter I was talking about earlier, the border between Papua and Queensland. Equally, too, am I concerned that we may reach the date of independence some time next year, with our blessing, at the request of the Government of Papua New Guinea, without resolving the dispute over the border between Papua and Queensland. I have stated my own position, and I will not regurgitate that tonight. It seems to me to be totally wrong both to deny the constitutional provisions of this country and to seek to act unilaterally, to find that you are bashing your head against a brick wall because the State Government of Queensland is vested with the right of an exercise of power in this area and to do little or nothing about this matter so soon before independence. As I understand it, officials of the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government- I do not know about representatives of the Torres Strait Islanders, although they are Australian citizens and ought to be involved- and officials of the Papua New Guinea Government have been meeting to talk about the border. We have heard nothing from this Government about that meeting. We just hear things obliquely. I have warned previously in this Parliament that it is one of those issues that I feel, after independence, will be raised within the United Nations if the Commonwealth Government has not acted fairly in consultation with the Government of Queensland and the Government of Papua New Guinea. Perhaps the Minister could advise me on this matter.

I do not want to go into the matter in great detail. The Minister himself showed respect to the House by keeping his speech relatively brief, but I have covered the matter of the agreements entered into in 1967 and the questions that arise out of the prima facie reading of clause 6 of those agreements as they apply to the State of Queensland. I have not asked the Minister for Science to give me any answers, but I have asked the Minister responsible for defence matters to advise us at some stage very shortly about defence arrangements between Australia and Papua New Guinea. This self-proclaimed party in government which is so interested in keeping white faces out of Asia and the Pacific is prepared to allow a minimum of 600 Australian servicemen to be seconded to the Papua New Guinea defence force and not even state a role for them. The Minister need not worry: I will say no more in regard to that matter. I just flag it. I have asked for some indication as to what is transpiring in negotiations on the border between Papua and Queensland. All these are relatively delicate matters and I understand that if they are the subject of negotiations at least the Minister could tell us that.. The other delicate matter is the actual transition to independence. It is delicate in the sense that no matter what country in the world is moving from an area where it is an administered power to becoming an entity internationally in its own right, there will be divergences within its community as to the timing. We can only act on the basis of the advice of the leadership group elected by the people of Papua New Guinea in this instance. Members of both sides of the House have spoken of the gradual movement towards self-government and independence. I put in the caveat tonight by indicating that the Constitutional Planning Committee itself was somewhat concerned last year about the pace that is being forced by the Commonwealth Government. I hope that the Government will not continue to force the pace and that it will respond primarily to the wishes of the Papua New Guinea Government. I would hope that this is so, but the transition to independence is at a delicate stage and it is a stage where we should be ensuring that the utmost assistance is forthcoming when it is requested from Papua New Guinea. According to the Minister, Papua New Guinea has agreed in the exchange of correspondence or by some other means to abide by the agreements on the environment and on restricting itself to the adjacent areas of Queensland and Papua New Guinea which is confined to the territorial sea and the continental shelf within the areas designated as adjacent areas. So it appears that this is, as the Minister has said, a further step on the way towards self-government and independence.

Every possible precaution must be taken to ensure that there is no misunderstanding or confusion and that we do not fall into the trap of passing over to some international jurisdiction the responsibility of clearing up something that ought to be cleared up here in Australia. It ought to be cleared up by this Parliament which has the prime responsibility in the matter. I hope that there will be no blemish in this legislation. We are all well aware of the controversy surrounding the off-shore jurisdiction- the controversy which has gone on for such a long time in the matter of the territorial seas and submerged lands. We do not want to see major constitutional issue develop concerning our relationship with Papua New Guinea in this matter. So whilst I support the principle and the objective of a smooth passage of the handing over of powers to Papua New

Guinea I emphasise the importance of this necessary precaution. Accordingly, I support the Bill but with that proviso and in the hope that a proper explanation will be given by the Minister and if there is any impediment at all that the matter will be returned for consideration by this House and any necessary adjustments made.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

-in reply- I am delighted to respond to my learned colleague the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). On the question he raised as to whether discussions were held with the Queensland Government on this legislation. I point out that the Off-shore Petroleum Agreement from which he quoted does not require consultation with the Government of Queensland on the specific subject matter of this Bill.

Mr Peacock:

– What about clause 6?

Mr MORRISON:

– Just one moment and we will come to clause 6. Indeed, to have sought the agreement of or discussion with Queensland would have been opposed to the clauses of the Bill. The honourable member referred to clause 6. In referring to that clause I think his quotation was relatively accurate. But it is a pity that the honourable member did not proceed to read clause 8, which states:

The provisions of the last two preceding clauses-

To wit, clause 6- to which he referred- and clause 7- do not-

I repeat the word ‘not’- apply to legislation with respect to or in its application to a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth not forming part of the Commonwealth.

That territory no doubt the honourable member for Kooyong would agree would be described -

Mr Peacock:

– Wait a minute. The territory of Papua is part of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr MORRISON:

-Our relationship is with the Territory of Papua New Guinea.

Mr Peacock:

– But regrettably for other reasons.

-We are talking about the transfer of powers and the movement of Papua New Guinea to independence. So I can assure the honourable member for Kooyong and all other honourable members opposite that the transfers and the discussions are taking place with the active participation of the Papua New

Guinea Government, the Constitutional Planning Committee and the House of Assembly. These discussions which are very pertinent to the points raised by the honourable member are continuing. So for the 1 5th time, I am sure, I can assure him that these discussions are proceeding and that they are proceeding effectively.

To recapitulate, the basis on which this Bill which contains amendments to the Act was introduced was that from our reading of the 1 967 agreement we did not consider we were required to consult with the Government of Queensland. In fact, any consultation would be inconsistent with the articles quoted in that agreement. But I am glad that the Opposition is supporting this Bill. We are delighted to have that support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1493

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 September (vide page 1274), on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1493

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a message from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House of 17 July relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on a parliamentary committee system subject to certain modifications. For the information of honourable members copies of the resolution of the House of 17 July and copies of the message of the Senate are now being circulated.

Morion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

That the modifications of the Senate be agreed to.

page 1493

PECUNIARY INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

Proposed Joint Committee

Debate resumed from 1 August (vide page 95 1 ), on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the arrangements to be made relative to the declaration of the interests of the Members of the Parliament and the registration thereof, and, in particular-
1. what classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit are to be disclosed;
2. how the register should be compiled and maintained and what arrangements should be made for public access thereto, and
3. what classes of person (if any) other than Members of the Parliament ought to be required to register; and to make recommendations upon these and any other matters which are relevant to the implementation of the said resolution.
That the committee consist of three Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, two Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate.
That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution of effluxion of time.
That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.
That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to lime, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
That five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
That the committee have power to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess.
10) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.
That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at a meeting have a deliberative vote, and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.
That the committee report within the shortest reasonable period and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
1 4 ) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-This motion deals with what is compendiously described as the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament and it involves a relationship to the establishment of a registry of what may be described in the same genre of language as what members own. It would be to state the obvious to say that it involves an area of very great contention. Regrettably the view is held outside the Parliament that those who come to Parliament come with no other motive than material profit. I speak for myself, and I hope that I speak for the members of all parties, when I say on the basis of nearly 20 years experience in this Parliament that I have apprehended no visible sign of that motive whatsoever. In point of fact, to put it in vulgar, homely language, ex-members of Parliament do not cut up well for probate. This resolution and the resolution which precedes it on the notice paper relate to the establishment of a registry of pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. At first blush that may seem to be quite unexceptionable. The simple truth of the matter is that it involves an area of political reflection and contemplation which should not be looked upon casually at all.

I want to make my own attitude quite clear. I speak among friends, even though I speak among political antagonists. For myself I have no material accomplishment in this world of any great sense at all. I am not filled with shame on that whatsoever. I am not greatly interested in material rewards. So I would seek without any sense of shame to put on the registry of this Parliament my material, my pecuniary interest. I have a house. I have a car. I have a set of chambers in the Inns of Court in Brisbane. I have a library. I have a small overdraft. I have 13 cats. I have a tolerant bank manager. I have a small Pekingese dog which is nearly 12 years of age and which I love very dearly.

Dr Jenkins:

– What is his name?

Mr KILLEN:

– It is a she and is called Ming Ming. Sir Robert Menzies thought it was named after him until I pointed out there was a Ming dynasty before his. I have a strong sense of Irish optimism which, God willing, I will command until the end of my days. That is the record I have.

If any person were to ask me what was the greatest thing that I command, I would say the fact that I hold a seat in the House of Representatives in Canberra where I can speak without fear or favour and where my arguments can be treated with contempt, ignore or, occasionally, with acceptance. That to me- materially speaking, even though it is a difficult notion to understandis the thing that I regard with the greatest sense of pride. I should explain that I am a trustee for some friends and for my family- I think it is five hundred or six hundred shares in Kathleen Investments. That is the lot. I do not think, to the best of my recollection, there is anything else at all. What is involved when members of Parliament are asked to disclose their pecuniary interests? It predicates, I suggest, that members of Parliament are in some way essentially different from the main stream of society. With very great respect to my friends on both sides of the House who may take a view mildly different from mine, that is simply not true. If we reach, in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the stage where members of Parliament are treated with such contempt that they seek to enter Parliament for no other reason than to serve themselves, Parliament has had its day.

I am reminded, not merely when I am down in the dumps but when I seek to be exhilarated, of one whose works I turn to constantly- Edmund Burke. He says it is a very shallow notion that people seek to serve in Parliament for no other motive than parliamentary perk and pension. In the nearly 20 years that I have been here I have seen a great number of people on both sides of politics who have sought to give of their intellectual, nervous and physical efforts and resources what they understood to be in the interests of the Parliament. Now, to come to our muttons, as it were. These 2 motions seek to set up a registry. The first one seeks to approve of the registry that members of Parliament should declare what their pecuniary interests are. I want to invite my friends on both sides of the House to contemplate what is meant by a pecuniary interest. Honourable members should not think this is a matter of shallow academic contemplation, because it is not. The truth of the matter is that the Strauss Committee in the United Kingdom in 1969-1 shall refer to the Committee ‘s report in a few moments- took the view that the definition of a pecuniary interest was one which was utterly elusive. If honourable members say that the Committee’s report was that it was elusive, it should be ignored and they should take the more pragmatic attitude. The United States of America, I think in the same year, set up registers both for members and candidates for both Houses of the Congress. They have run into nothing else but trouble ever since.

The point I want to put to the Parliament is a very short one. If we have people disposed towards dishonour, no collection of registries will contain them. If we have a person who comes in on either side of the Parliament and says: ‘I am going to take the opportunity of my place in this Parliament to garner to myself the material accomplishments that I may see before me’, no set of registries will serve as a halter to that form of enterprise. This is a matter of very great antiquity to those who walk in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of parliamentary association. It was in 1811 that Mr Speaker Abbott in the House of Commons laid down that no person who had a pecuniary interest should vote upon any matter and any person who had a pecuniary interest should declare it to the House in which he speaks. Mr Speaker Cope, it is 100-odd years since this took place. That ruling of Mr Speaker Abbott has not been greatly disturbed at all. It has been reflected upon. It has been added to. It has never been disturbed.

In 1969 the mother of Parliament, the House of Commons, set up a committee to look at this very precise question. It was not a committee composed of what one might describe, with great respect, as parliamentary acolytes. It was composed of members of the House of Commons with very considerable parliamentary experience. For example it was presided over by Mr Strauss himself. Those who have known him would hesitate to describe him as being a man of milk and water political conviction. He held tenaciously to the views that he expounded on behalf of his Party. Other members who served on the Committee- a few of them I have had the very great privilege of having known- were Patrick Gordon Walker, Sir Derek WalkerSmith and Sir John Vaughan-Morgan. These were people who had a feel for parliament, an instinct for parliament. They concluded that the notion of a registry would not meet the outstanding concern of members of the public that there was something awry with parliament. Their report- if I may describe it as being the Strauss report- is a very closely reasoned report. If I may, without impertinence, I would commend it to all members of Parliament before we adopt a definitive attitude to this. It is a very closely reasoned report.

Five years later, in May of this year, the House of Commons turned to the Strauss Committee’s report in one way or another and voted for the establishment of a registry. Immediately after having done that- predictably, I suppose one might say- members of the House of Commons voted for the establishment of a select committee to find out how the registry should operate. What I seek to do on behalf of the Opposition is to invite the House in its corporate sense to agree to the proposition that we should have first of all in Australia a Strauss style committee. There are too many people on the Government side of the Parliament who know my weaknesses. I do not seek to disguise them. I do not seek to explain them. But I do have a great feeling for Parliament as an institution. What I have the deepest anxiety for is to see explained in this country the position of members of Parliament and the fact that those who come to Parliament have no intemperate anxiety to profit in material sense, that they come to Parliament with a gentle sense of pride and with a firm sense of determination to try to profit the country. Therefore, in respect of this motion, I move:

I invite my friends and I invite the House to acknowledge what this amendment involves. There will be a committee of inquiry. The maximum opportunity will be given to all members of Parliament and to all members of the public to put before that committee their views. There will be an opportunity also to give to the Parliament and to the country the fact that those who sit here do not take the narrow, pinched, constrained, impoverished view that Parliament is composed of rogues.

Mr Hunt:

– I second the motion, and reserve my right to speak.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I wish to speak only briefly to this motion. With regard to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), I find myself, probably in common with some other honourable members, in some confusion as to how to consider the amendment. The amendment in itself may have been better dealt with by considering Order of the Day No. 7, consideration of which has been postponed. I cannot very well debate the subject matter of that motion. I think the honourable member for Moreton would admit that there is some room for argument and discussion as to which motion could have been taken first and whether what he seeks to attain might not have been better dealt with in a consideration of the postponed motion dealing with the pecuniary interest of members of the House of Representatives.

– That is sheer rubbish.

Mr HYDE:

– It is not rubbish, and I will defend my point of view. The honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), on the Minister’s side of the House, outlined the difficulties of this exercise yet the Government sets out to pre-empt this proposed committee. I believe- I speak for myself and for a great many other members from this side- that there ought to be a register of members’ interests. However this whole exercise has been proposed in such a way that there is little option but to oppose the motions as they stand. The first motion contains the words ‘communications which a member might have with other members’. How wide and how vague these words are. It refers also to a member’s communications with servants of the Crown. Could this relate to every Post Office employee? There is reference to indirect interests. Surely that expression needs denning. It refers to interests ‘of whatever nature’. Is that not ridiculously broad?

The motion refers to interests that a member may have had. Do honourable members really believe that anyone is competent to research his affairs back far enough to ascertain any interests that he may have had but which he does not have now or which he may have in the future? The Government has set up this exercise in such a way that there is little option but to oppose the motion. Those of us who would support a register of members’ interests must oppose the motion as it stands. However I would support it in its proposed amended form because then there would be a committee competent to make investigations and perhaps put some workable proposal before the House.

I have had enough experience of the Australian Labor Party to know the way its propaganda runs and it is not difficult to see why this exercise has been set up in this manner. It is to deny us the opportunity to support the idea of a register. I personally support the idea of a register because among other things it would limit the opportunity for accusation that a member of Parliament was unduly influenced by his pecuniary interests. It would be easy to establish at least what are some of the more obvious pecuniary interests. We have opted for public life. It does not offend me that details of assets should be known to the public. I entered public life and accept this fact. However, it was not the intention that this should be the case when the Government proposed these motions.

It is necessary not only that a member be above suspicion in these matters but also that he be seen to be above suspicion. It is necessary to know, when a member does have an interest, what effect that interest should have upon the member’s rights, privileges and obligations. For instance, is he to be debarred from speaking? Is he to be debarred from voting? Is it sufficient that his vote and his voice be judged in the light of the public knowledge and the knowledge of other honourable members that he has such an interest? These are the sorts of questions that the proposed committee must report upon and until we have the findings of the committee we are not competent to judge. I put it that the Government is not serious in this matter and it wants to see the motion opposed.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-This, for me, is a rather academic exercise because I have only one job and only one salary. I have no other property deriving other income. I also have a tolerant bank manager but I do not have a pekingese or a budgerigar. I am pleased that the Government has permitted order of the day No. 8 to precede debate on order of the day No. 7 because it should do so. I am pleased also that the amendment has been moved because I think it is necessary. The crux of the whole question is whether arrangements should be made. I do not oppose the setting up of a committee. I do not oppose that committee investigating whether it would necessarily make us more honest or more fit to represent people in this place if we made such revelations as it feels it might be wise for us to make.

For order of the day No. 7 to have preceded this order of the day, I think, would have been a travesty of justice because I think the contents of that order of the day should come as a result of a committee report. I think we should know and have the benefit of the deliberations of a committee concerning what are pecuniary interests, what ought to be revealed, just how available that information ought to be and whether consideration should be given to persons other than members of Parliament, because this principle could be taken further and could be applied to those who handle the affairs of people and who could probably be in a position similar to that of members of Parliament. It could apply to members of the judiciary, to public servants and to municipal and shire councillors. It could apply to a whole range of people. The proposed committee should consider these aspects.

Paragraph (a) of order of the day No. 7 should be more specific. It talks about pecuniary interests, direct or indirect, that a member may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. Naturally I cannot accept that proposal in its present form. However I can accept order of the day No. 8 as it is proposed to be amended. I can accept that a committee be set up to look into all aspects of this matter including whether there ought to be a register, what form that register should take and what it is necessary to record in that register. We need to know the purpose of that register. I think this is the correct order of tilings. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and I hope that it will see that this matter ought to precede Order of the Day No. 8.

I disagree with the point of view expressed by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) in this regard. I want to know, for instance, what information ought to be available to the public, as well as in what circumstances and for what purposes it should be made available. Details of holdings in public companies are available to the public now. If one goes to the proper place and one pays one’s $1 one can obtain details of all the shareholdings in every public company. Information in relation to land dealings is also available now to any person who goes to the right place and pays the fee. I can readily understand, for instance, why a Prime Minister from either side of politics might require to know the holdings in various companies and the various interests of his Ministers. I would think that is the practice in most parliaments and in most governments. If that practice is to be widened let us set up a committee to find out how it should be widened and exactly what ought to be put in such a register.

I believe that when we enter this place we lose our privacy to a degree. When a person becomes a member of this Parliament he has very little private life. That is not a complaint at all; that is something that we expect and we accept. But I think we ought to have some rights of privacy. Therefore, if the proposed committee were to look at this matter responsibly it would come to the Parliament and say: ‘These are the reasons that we think these things ought to be registered and ought to be made available. This is the nature of the thing. This is how it should be presented and this is how it should be made available and these are the people to whom it should be made available’. If that is done we will have things in their proper order. I think the Government would find that it would receive the cooperation of this side of the House if things were done in that order.

I appeal to the Government to consider that aspect, because in that context Order of the Day No. 7 is out of place. We are presuming something about which we have no evidence, no advice and in relation to which we have conducted no investigation. We would be setting up a committee more or less for the purpose of filling in the names at the top of the columns, because that is the order in which these matters appear on the notice paper.

I do not want to take a lot of time but I do think this matter is so very important. I hope the amendment will be accepted because we ought not to presuppose things in the way in which Order of the Day No. 8 does. Order of the Day No. 8 reads:

I ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the arrangements to be made . . .

I think that Committee ought to report whether arrangements should be made and then give us the nature of the arrangements that it recommends. Then we can have a look at the deliberations of that Committee. We find that such committees of the Parliament are an asset to the Parliament. We find that parliamentary committees achieve very much on a non-partisan basis. We find that committees are very rarely divided on political lines. We find that the deliberations which take place at such committees result in the enrichment of the legislation that comes out of this Parliament. I think we want this legislation, but we want good legislation. If we want legislation which will be fair to the men who come to this place to represent the people, this is the way to do it. Therefore I support the amendment and ask that the Government give consideration to taking the course of action suggested.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-The matter under consideration is a very basic one, and it is one that raises a very important aspect of parliamentary procedure. For that reason it should be approached in a bipartisan manner and in a way which will lead to the question of pecuniary interest being dealt with in all its aspects. I would suggest to honourable members opposite that there is a deep need to go into the question on a broad ranging inquiry. For that reason I support very strongly the amendment proposed. We need to get this matter into perspective because as you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a standing order which deals with this matter. If I might remind honourable members of what it says, standing order 1 96 reads:

No member shall be entitled to vote in any division upon a question (not being a matter of public policy) in which he has a direct pecuniary interest not held in common with the rest of the subjects of the Crown. The vote of a member may not be challenged except on a substantive motion moved immediately after the division is completed, and the vote of a member determined to be so interested shall be disallowed.

I have not checked this, but no doubt that standing order has been in the Standing Orders since the Standing Orders of this Parliament came into existence. Of course, that standing order puts into words the ruling of Speaker Abbott, to which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) referred. That ruling was expressed in 1811. It appears therefore that we do have a ruling. I would imagine that if the Clerk of the House was consulted he could tell honourable members that it may have been invoked occasionally, but not very often, since this House first met. Indeed, that appears to have been the experience in the United Kingdom. On page 5 of the Strauss report the Clerk of the House of Commons gave some evidence. In paragraph 16 he said:

Mr Speaker Abbott’s ruling has been at once so comprehensive and so well observed that there is only a single recorded instance of the votes of members on a public matter being disallowed- namely, in 1 892 on a motion for a grant in aid in connection with a projected East African railway.

That evidence was given in 1969 but it does tell us that this is not a matter which often arises. It is also a matter which can be considered coolly. It is a matter that ought to be considered on a bipartisan basis and on a broad basis. The terms of reference of the Strauss Committee were simply these:

To consider the rules and practices of the House in relation to the declaration of members’ interests and to report thereon.

They are very broad terms, yet they led to a statement of view that there ought not to be a register. Whether there ought to be a register and the problems that can arise in relation to it have to some extent been ventilated by honourable members who have preceded me in the debate, and I do not propose to go into them at any length. However, one does need to ask the question: Is there really any need to define the meaning of ‘pecuniary interest’? Indeed, is it desirable? The view that the Strauss Committee expressed was that under English parliamentary practice it was better that the phrase should remain undefined. Of course, this has been the practice of the common law, and it has been a practice which has been found apposite to those of us who practise the common law because we know that a broad phrase like that is capable of being applied to instances as they arise. If one starts to define such a phrase the danger is that instead of being broad it will be restricted. Indeed, the question does arise whether standing order 196 in itself is not an appropriate standing order to retain and whether it does not do justice to the problem of pecuniary interest. We on this side of the House, of course, support a broad ranging inquiry. I would urge on the Special Minister of State the willingness to co-operate that has been expressed in this debate. I would urge on him the desirability of either accepting our amendment or, if he finds it difficult to accept it at the moment, of adjourning this debate so that the matter could be considered by the other side of the House.

There have been inquiries in other places. There has been an inquiry in Victoria and an inquiry in Canada. All sorts of matters arise once this question is examined. Let me read to the House the principles, the guidelines that were expressed in the Green Paper that was presented to the House of Commons in Canada. The principles may indicate to honourable members on both sides of the House the need for a wide ranging inquiry in order to deal with this matter properly. The Green Paper states:

A Member of Parliament is a trustee of public confidence and must perform and appear to perform his duties in a manner reflecting the highest degree of concern for the public interest. Moreover, a Member of Parliament must at all times ensure that his actions do not detract from the dignity of Parliament, and the respect and confidence which society places in it.

That is a very basic principle, and so far as I am concerned it is one that always has been observed by members of this Parliament. The Green Paper further states:

Members of Parliament should make every reasonable effort to avoid even the appearance of those conflicts of interest that are not inherent in a representative democracy.
Where possible, the rules on conflict of interest should be formulated so as not to restrict unduly candidacy for the Canadian House of Commons or unnecessarily prevent any group in society from holding membership in the House of Commons or Senate.

That is a very important principle, as well. One needs to consider the effect that restrictive rules on declaration of interest may indeed have on possible candidates. The Green Paper continues:

The rules on conflict of interest should attempt to provide the public with that information which is relevant to the question of conflict of interest while safeguarding the individual Members’ right to privacy regarding information which the public does not require.

The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has quite rightly referred to the question of privacy and human rights. It is a matter of considerable importance that the privacy of members of Parliament be preserved. Every one of us is subjected to public scrutiny in one way or another and indeed it is proper that we should be, but at the same time we are entitled to live our private lives and there ought to be a balance between public interest in disclosure and the right of privacy of the individual to which every member of Parliament ought to be entitled, consistent with his duty to the public. A committee properly appointed with broad terms of reference would be able to consider that matter over a period and reflect upon it. The Green Paper goes on:

The right of members of the public to equal access and impartial treatment by government officials should be respected at all times.
The rules on conflict of interest of Members of Parliament should assume the form most appropriate to their application and to the general problem area. Those rules which are capable of precise definition and which can, therefore, be objectively tested should usually be set out in legislation. Those rules which can only be stated in subjective language, and must rely for their application on the individual circumstances of each situation, should be set out in a less formal manner.

There lies a very important matter because, if it is to be dealt with, it may require legislation. That may be the constitutional view which is takenthat if a register is to be set up it has to become the subject of legislation. Of course if one is to consider legislation then one has to consider the form it is to take, the breadth of it and the narrowness of it and the need to take into account the matters that the Canadian Green Paper expresses in rule 6. The Green Paper continues:

The public should be granted a limited avenue to initiate investigations into apparent violations of the statutory provisions regarding conflicts of interest.
Through a process of continuing review Parliament should ensure that the legislation and the rules governing conflict of interest are relevant to changing situations.

So in the Canadian Green Paper, 8 rules are set out which indicate that this is a matter which requires a broad approach. The Strauss report in England indicates it, and we on this side of the House would strongly urge honourable members opposite to accept the amendment. If they cannot accept it tonight, would they please consider adjourning this debate so that they can consider what we on this side of the House have put to them in our speeches tonight.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-Having heard the speech by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), I can only say that I regret having to follow immediately after him in this debate. I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Wentworth, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). However, I think there are two rather more pragmatic matters that the House would do well to consider. The first one I wish to mention is the matter of elections and the second is the selection of candidates. Let me deal with the first point. Depending on the findings that the committee of inquiry hands down and how this House accepts those findings, there could arise a ludicrous situation which would be against the democratic process. I use for the purpose of example the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins). I know he is a doctor. I know that he is a learned man who won his way through educational institutions on scholarships. I know that he is a sincere member of Parliament. I do not know whether he has had time in his rather brilliant career to cam funds that he can salt away. This is the honourable member’s prerogative and not mine to inquire into. Say, for the sake of an example, that he had been so brilliant in his particular sphere and had worked so hard that he had salted away a property in the Dandenongs. When he stands for election as a member of Parliament, as part of the democratic process, this man can be blackguarded and pilloried by mean minded candidates who happen to be standing against him. This is not a process that would help democracy. This would be totally unfair to many members of this Parliament who have had the capacity to achieve something in the community. I remind the House that there are severe disadvantages that I hope any committee of inquiry will be quick to pick up. These disadvantages would react against the democratic process and against the capacity of the democratic machine of all major political parties to nominate candidates for election to Parliament. I do not believe that the Australian nation would be served by too blatant a description of assets. Such a description would work to the disadvantage of the current system.

Let us look at the candidates themselves. I do not think that it is any secret that all the major political parties in this House try frantically from one year to the next to find the best candidates they can to contest seats for them. I do not think that any political party in this House is always satisfied with the quality of the candidates that it can find to contest seats for it. There is a crying need in this nation for better candidates, no matter which party one is thinking of. Does the House seriously think that the process of finding good quality candidates will be improved by the thought that any man who deigns to stand for preselection for a political party will be subject to undue inquiry into his privacy? Does it think that that would serve the path of democracy properly for the future of this nation? I think that those are just 2 matters that we would do well to consider in an entirely pragmatic and commonsense fashion.

We on this side of the House do not object to a properly constituted committee of inquiry examining this matter. I think that it needs some research. But I would consider it my duty to my electorate to point to the 2 aspects- I think they have been properly taken- of whether the community and the nation at large would be properly served by denying to members of parliament the privacy that the community today wishes to retain in so many areas. Those 2 points are of much concern to me. I agree entirely with the 3 very good speeches on this matter that I have heard from this side of the House. I support the amendment. I have every confidence that a committee of inquiry would come to proper conclusions in relation to this matter.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-As honourable members on both sides of the House have said tonight, this is a most important matter. I think it is of additional importance in this time of turbulence in the Australian community, particularly as it pertains to the standing of politicians, whether they be at a federal, State or local government level. It disturbs me that there should be such an attitude towards politicians and it disturbs me that this proposition in fact gives some indication of a feeling of concern towards the propriety of politicians. It seems to me that this, coming from the proposition that has been put before us, will seek to demonstrate that there is a degree of malpractice within the ranks of the membership of the Federal Parliament and that this course of events will discover it, or that there is malpractice and that this may stop it.

I believe that members of the Federal Parliament have shown themselves over the many years in which the Federal Parliament has been in existence to have a very fine record in respect of allegations of malpractice. I think that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) stated the position very clearly when he said that people who become members of this House do not do so for pecuniary gain but do so through a deep sense of commitment, no matter to which Party they belong. I agree with those honourable members on this side of the House who have suggested that if people do not come into this House with this sense of commitment and if people are not of the honourable nature that we believe all members of Parliament should be, no amount of legislation will stop their malpractices. I believe that what we are seeking to do is to bring about a situation in which, if one can slightly expand the expression, justice can not only be done but also be seen to be done.

I believe that honourable members on this side of the House are fully in agreement that some form of investigation should lay down some directions on whether a register should or should not be instituted. We believe that it is wrong to lay down a set of criteria and then form a committee to investigate them. I, along with other honourable members on this side of the House, sincerely ask the Government to look very closely at the form of the amendment and, if it cannot accept the amendment in the form presented tonight, at least to adjourn the matter so that it can come forward again for discussion. Matters of great substance are involved, including the privacy of members of Parliament, the need to think very deeply about the form that any proposed legislation should take, the question of how far the register should go if it is instituted and whether it should stop at just members of Parliament or should be extended to the judiciary, members of unions or wherever. I believe that this is a matter of great moment. I do not believe that it should be hurried through the Parliament. I believe very strongly that it is worth while considering it in great detail, in great depth and with some consideration. I sincerely ask the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is sitting at the table, if he cannot agree with the amendment moved by the Opposition at least to adjourn further discussion of this matter until the suggestions have been deeply canvassed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I wish to speak to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I want to make clear the position as seen by the Government. The Government believes that honourable members should disclose their pecuniary interests. That is the purpose of the proposition in relation to which further discussion has been stood over, that is, Order of the Day No. 7. It is felt, firstly, that the principle that such interests should be disclosed ought to be clearly understood. The idea behind Order of the Day No. 8, which it has been agreed should be debated first, is to have ascertained by a proposed joint committee how and in what manner pecuniary interests should be disclosed and by what people.

The contribution to the debate by honourable members opposite has ranged from those who have been quite friendly to those who have been quite vicious on the basis that the Government has some ulterior motive for seeking the disclosure of such interests. That is not the position at all. I can well understand the impecuniosity of my good friend the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). In fact, I am wondering whether he is close to bankruptcy and we will lose him altogether. I have welcomed the debate tonight. Everybody who has made a contribution to it has seemed not to have any assets. I can understand that. The only exception I took to the contributions to the debate was to that by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), who is a new member of this Parliament. He said that he thought this was a political manoeuvre. It is not. If he wants to hang onto his seat he should be anxious about ensuring that this proposition is carried because, if it is not, his opponent could be prone to say that he was frightened about disclosing his interests. That is a well known tactic which is used to defeat a politician.

Mr Hyde:

– I did not say that.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I listened to what the honourable member said. He said that it was a political opportunist action on behalf of the Government. To that extent I object to what he said. We wish to make it clear, as is set out in the proposition, that pecuniary interests are disclosed as a must. Let me make it clear that we are not seeking to get honourable members to do anything that they are not already obliged to do.

We are now obliged to do it. That is the law. So no umbrage should be taken to the proposition contained in Order of the Day No. 7, even though my good friend the honourable member for Moreton felt that he wanted to deal with Order of the Day No. 8 first.

I want to make it clear that this matter was discussed in the House of Commons and there was a lot of doubt and uncertainty as to how best to interpret ‘pecuniary interest’. It had difficulty in doing so but it did arrive at the conclusion that it should be disclosed. It said that if it was relevant in one ‘s mind one should make such a disclosure. That is what Order of the Day No. 7 says and that is what standing order 1 96 says. Let me refer to section 44 of the Constitution, which is what should be looked at. It states that any honourable member will lose his seat if he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. That is laid down in the Constitution brought down by our forefathers. If a member does not disclose such interests he will be subject to a daily penalty which would certainly send him bankrupt. The whole issue is whether in the past it was thought there had to be something called a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. It is very difficult and perhaps almost impossible to define. Nevertheless, it was felt that it ought to be disclosed. Obviously the onus is on the individual to do it and there should be no objection to anybody doing it.

In the course of a reasonable debate the objection may then follow as to whether one should disclose the whole of one’s private assets and whether they would be blazoned over every newspaper, as they probably would be. My good friend from Moreton referred to probate. Of course one’s assets are disclosed then for everybody to see, but at that stage one has passed on and is not worried. But they are disclosed. If one is ever in the witness box and my friend the honourable member for Moreton is crossexamining he might ask one to disclose all one’s assets and they also would be printed. But we are not going into that detail except in relation to the very valid point as to why only members of Parliament must be involved in such a requirement. Perhaps it should cover a wide number of people. Perhaps there are many people who have held office in the Public Service who have gone out to take directorships in private companies. One would be anxious to know whether there was some earlier motivation for that sort of action.

I do not want to delay the House but we are concerned with the part of the amendment which proposes that the words be altered to say whether any arrangements should be made instead of reporting on the arrangements that would have been involved in the passage of Order of the Day No. 7. If the committee reports that no arrangements are to be made nothing will be done by way of disclosure. But in fairness to the honourable member for Moreton and in the interests of this Parliament- I respect all members and I know that it is a very honest Parliament and the only criticism comes from people who are not really involved with members or do not know enough about them and how they work- the real issue is whether we are to accept an amendment which would mean the defeat of the principle in Order of the Day No. 7. 1 would reject such an amendment. But I have an understanding and perhaps an undertaking from my honourable friend that Order of the Day No. 7 can remain on the paper and be debated.

Mr Killen:

– I wish, by way of interjection, to record that that is quite clear.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I appreciate that. So on the basis that from the Government side we are anxious to have some form of disclosure- in fact we are committed to it and we will always agitate for it- we recognise this had to go to another place and it has to have the co-operation of another place, we do not want just to defeat it on a sheer political issue here this evening. I foreshadow an undertaking to accept the amendment on the basis that leave is given for me to move for the insertion in paragraph 12 after the word ‘period’ the words ‘not later than 90 days after the members of the committee are appointed’. That would mean that the committee would report back and then we could still deal with order of the day No. 7. I think that would be a fair arrangement. If my friend agrees I foreshadow that that is the course we can adopt.

Mr KILLEN (Moreton)-by leave-I thank my friend the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) for his graciousness. This is a parliamentary occasion and without being patronising in the least- I have no capacity for patronage or anything to offer- I say that the honourable gentleman has risen to that occasion. I think the Parliament to that extent has been enhanced. On behalf of the Opposition I give an unqualified assurance of support of what the honourable gentleman has asked for.

Mr HYDE (Moore)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented

Mr HYDE:

– Yes, by the Special Minister of State. The Minister cannot have listened to very much of my argument. What I said was that in the manner in which the Government had set this exercise up it denied anyone who agreed that there ought to be a register- I was one who went on record as saying that there ought to be a registeran opportunity of supporting it. I then attacked the manner in which the exercise was conducted. I suggest that the Minister did not listen to very much that was said.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State)- With the indulgence of the Chair, may I say that I was misrepresented to the extent that the honourable member for Moore said that I did not listen to what was said. I listened to what was said. The honourable member was the only one who made out that there was political motivation. I say that that is not so; the motion was moved for the reasons set out in the Constitution and for the reasons that have motivated 2 other Parliaments, the British and the Canadian parliaments, to do something about this matter. It is as simple as that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

In paragraph 12 after the word ‘period’ insert the words ‘not later than 90 days after the members of the committee are appointed.’

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 1504

ADJOURNMENT

The Parliament- Defence- Cities Commission- Steel

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I take this first opportunity available to me to put on record the sequence of events on 23 August. I would have preferred to do this sooner and to do it at a time when the proceedings were being broadcast. I know that what I am going to say will not be easy to follow except by those who know the procedure of the Parliament. But I think that it is important that it should be put on record and made quite clear in Hansard. This is important not for me but because I believe that the proper adherence to the forms of this House and the rights of members is something which we should all guard.

I turn now to the events of 23 August. I should like first to compliment Hansard on the accuracy of its report. There was a great deal of disturbance in the House at the time and it cannot have been easy for Hansard to get the report accurate.

I believe it has succeeded in so doing. I turn to the events on that afternoon. At about half-past 3 I was told that in the Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast of proceedings some improper references had been made to me. When I heard this I went to you, Mr Speaker. I mentioned that I had been misrepresented and you, as is right and proper and as is your custom, said you would give me an opportunity to make an explanation. At about 10 minutes to 4 o ‘clock I did endeavour to do this. There was some misunderstanding, which I can well understand in the confusion. Although you gave me the call I did not have a chance to proceed. Instead, the motion of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) took precedence. He moved that the House at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 17 September, and that motion was duly carried. So the House at that stage decided when it would meet after its rising for the adjournment. Later in the day I again endeavoured to put the misrepresentation and you will see that on page 1 166 of Hansard. But once again I did not succeed in doing so because the Leader of the House moved ‘That the House do now adjourn’. He spoke for some 10 minutes on that question and concluded with these words:

Having said so much I move:

You, Mr Speaker, very properly refused to take that motion at that time saying quite accurately:

I promised to deal with a personal explanation pertaining to matters outside this House.

You then called me and I made my explanation and you, Sir, were good enough to support what I had said in regard to the misrepresentation saying that the ABC broadcaster had been instructed that in future he was not to repeat the performance. This is all recorded in Hansard.

I turn now to the crucial page of Hansard, page 1 168. If you will look at Hansard, Sir, you will see that having supported me in the misrepresentation you then said, quite properly and quite accurately:

The question is that the House do now adjourn.

The previous question, the gag, had not been put, even much less carried by the House. I rose as was my right to speak on the adjournment. This is the undoubted right of every member. But I got in only 6 lines in Hansard when you, Sir, ordered me to sit down. I say that at this point you were wrong because there was no power in the Speaker to do this. It would have been entirely contrary to the practices of the House for the Speaker to prevent a member from making a speech on the adjournment when there had been no gag carried, no motion carried by the House that the question be now put. At that stage, Sir, you went- if I may say so with all respect- wrong and the Hansard shows it. It is shown at page 1 168 of Hansard. But, Sir, you not only did that. Hansard records you as saying:

Mr Speaker:

– Order! I have not put the question. The question is that the House do now adjourn. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ayes have it.

Sir, at that stage you had put me in a position where I could no longer, within the forms of the House, continue to speak on the adjournment. I know that there was confusion. I recognise that there was a certain amount of cross talk across the chamber at this stage. I recognise that members were hurrying to get away to their VIP planes. I know all this was so.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable member travelled the next morning with me to Sydney on a VIP plane.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-That is quite correct. It is not a point of order, Sir, I would hope that you will take some notice of the frivolous kind of points which the Leader of the House is taking. You know it is not an honest thing that he has done. Let me go further. At that stage, Sir, my right to speak on the adjournment had been wrongfully taken away from me. I have never known any comparable procedure in this House where a member is speaking on the adjournment and has a right to speak on the adjournment. We have a situation in which a member speaks for 6 lines only and the Speaker without any authority from the House sits him down, puts the question ‘That the House do now adjourn’, and proceeds straight on to a decision on the matter.

Sir, I think that you could understand my indignation at this stage. I had been trying, as you know, for all the day to raise the major questions of the economic and industrial difficulties which were then facing the country. They were and still are momentous. But at that stage the industrial difficulties were so bad that there was no transport to take members home by the normal aircraft and we had to resort to VIP planes to get back to our electorates. What was happening to us was perhaps of small moment except insofar as it was indicative of what was happening to other people in greater numbers and perhaps where more important things were involved and greater inconveniences were being suffered.

Sir, I have endeavoured to put the actual sequence of events as I saw them and I think you can understand my indignation. You had adjourned the House, and the House having been adjourned it is true that I went on to speak. Sir, I felt that in honour I could have done nothing else.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I thought that I should say a few words about the speech just made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). Mr Speaker, the honourable member talked about his indignation at the way he was treated, or allegedly treated, by your good self. I would just like to remind the honourable member of the indignation of all members of the Parliament at the way in which he abuses the Standing Orders with regularity and obstructs the business of the House I refer to the Joint Sitting as a classic example, when he moved the suspension of Standing Orders on unrelated matters so that he could grab the limelight on a day when the Parliament was televised. We have had to suffer this kind of behaviour week in and week out. The honourable member has taken frivolous points of order. He has pursued points of order with the Speaker to the point where the Speaker has on many occasions demonstrated his leniency towards him. It is unfair for the honourable member for Mackellar to come into the House during the Adjournment debate and raise matters of the kind he has raised tonight, when the Speaker does not have the right of reply. The honourable member traversed ground which was traversed yesterday during discussion on the motion of no confidence in the Speaker which was defeated by this Parliament.

The honourable member talked about his indignation. We all suffer quite a lot with him. The honourable member has used these obstructionist measures since 1972 when he went onto the back bench of the Opposition. The managers of his own side of the House are often distressed by his frivolous actions in the House and his constant disruption. So if we are talking about indignation I would like the honourable member for Mackellar to consider you, Mr Speaker, on more occasions than in the past and also to consider members on this side of the House and other members of the Parliament who feel that they are elected to say something in this Parliament at odd times and particularly during the adjournment debate. The honourable member for Mackellar should not monopolise the adjournment debate on most nights of the week.

He has taken advantage of the fact that at the commencement of the adjournment debate the Speaker calls a member from the Opposition side first and then a member from the Government side of the House. Because of the limited time for debate more Opposition speakers than Government speakers get the call. Therefore on most occasions the honourable member for Mackellar gets an unfair advantage over most members from this side of the Parliament. I think that most members from this side of the Parliament feel that they also have a right to speak on the adjournment and to raise the matters of importance to their constituents or their elecorares. I ask the honourable member for Mackellar to consider other members of this House before he gets up to justify himself again.

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, Sir. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) spoke about my frivolous motion at the Joint Sitting. That motion was not frivolous. It was supported by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. A few days previously in the High Court he had said specifically that I would be in order in so doing. So to describe it as frivolous shows the ignorance of the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! In regard to the Standing Orders, I should like to say that quite a number of members of this House, including the honourable member for Mackellar, never conform to standing order 56. When the honourable member walks into the House he does so as if he is going to pay a deposit into a bank. When the honourable member for Hunter walks into the House he winks at me. If the honourable member for Mackellar reads standing order 56 he will see that he should pay obeisance to the Chair. Earlier tonight the honourable member for Mackellar came into the House from the Government side of the chamber and walked straight across the chamber without paying obeisance to the Chair. I suggest that in future everyone obey the Standing Orders properly.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am justly rebuked, Mr ‘ Speaker.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

-I wish to speak briefly tonight on a defence matter. As a matter of courtesy I sent to the office of the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) a telephone message to let him know that I was proposing so to do. This afternoon I received some very disturbing news from Brisbane which indicates a further downturn in the effectiveness of our defence forces. I am informed that a large mobile army exercise known as ‘Latin Forum’ and involving troops from New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Malaysia, which was scheduled to take place today in the Charleville-Quilpie area of Queensland, had to be cancelled at short notice owing to insufficiency of fuel. I ask the Minister for Defence- perhaps the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) would be good enough to convey this request to him- whether he will at the first opportunity advise the House whether he has any information that he can give regarding this report.

The incident- assuming that the information I have received today is correct, and I have no reason whatever to doubt its authenticity- is the latest development in what can only be described as a steadily deteriorating state of affairs affecting the safety and security of Australia. I believe the Minister himself- knowing him well as I do- must be concerned, along with many other members of this Parliament, and indeed with a great many other Australian citizens, representing virtually all shades of political opinion except the extreme left wing unions and those who support the revolutionary socialist left which, as we all know, is dedicated to the complete overthrow of our present social order. In a Press release dated 9 September 1974 the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), who is the shadow Minister for Defence, mentioned that a few days earlier he had been in Darwin and several Fills and a squadron of Mirages had been prevented from returning to their home bases in Queensland and New South Wales.

Australia, as we all know, has a very long coastline. I think it is about 12,000 miles. Now it is more unprotected than ever because Royal Australian Navy patrol boats based in Northern Queensland are unable to exercise proper surveillance. I was speaking recently to a naval officer in Sydney at a private gathering. He told me that, because of industrial disputes, several RAN vessels could not be dry-docked for refitting and repair because of the actions of certain left wing maritime unions. Clearly, militant extremists in Australia are sabotaging our defences. I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to take strong steps to deal with the industrial lawlessness which is weakening and undermining the safety and security of millions of decent, law-abiding Australians.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-Last night I made some remarks about the appointment by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who is at the table, of a Mr Mundey to the Advisory Committee of the Cities Commission. I pointed out at the time that Parliament had agreed to the appointment to this Committee of 2 people trained and qualified as environmentalists and conservationists. To allow for those 2 appointments Parliament agreed to an amendment moved by myself on behalf of the member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) to increase the number on the Advisory Committee of the Cities Commision by two. I read out last night the names of the 3 persons who had been appointed by the Minister. I have no intention of repeating them. The first one and the second one have no claim to any expertise in the fields of environment or conservation. The third one the Minister appointed was a man called Mr Mundey.

I hasten to point out that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), who spoke later, was entirely accurate when he said that I could not have checked my facts and that Mr Mundey was no longer a member of either the Advisory Committee or the Cities Commision. I checked today and I found out that the honourable member for Hunter was quite correct in his impression that 2 months ago Mr Mundey resigned from the Advisory Committee after attending 2 meetings. I can only think that he retired because he realised that the appointment in the first place was entirely wrong. He was not at any stage to be considered an expert in the fields of either environment or conservation. But I do not think that is the point. The honourable member for Hunter, I am sure, would hasten to agree with me. The point I made throughout my speech last night was that it was a wrong appointment. I am glad the honourable member for Hunter is nodding agreement, because it was a wrong appointment. Parliament accepted the amendment I moved that the number of members of the Advisory Committee should be increased from eleven to thirteen to provide membership for 2 people properly trained and competent in the field of environment and conservation.

As I said last night I am sorry that I did not advise the Minister that I was about to bring this matter up. I am very glad that the Minister is at the table tonight. There is a great deal for which he has to answer to Parliament in relation to these appointments. I do not think anyone would accept that one should properly think that this man, Mr Mundey, is anything other than an enthusiastic amateur. He has been misguided in some of his aims and certainly he did not conform with the definition put down by Parliament when it accepted the amendment I moved. As I said last night, and I repeat, I think Parliament, not the Opposition, deserves a proper answer from the Minister as to why he appointed this man. If this man did not conform with the definition that Parliament imposed in the appointment of 2 extra people, Parliament is left with little other way of thinking than that the Minister appointed him on a personal buddy-buddy relationship, which is exactly what I said last night.

I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to this matter. I take the first available opportunity, as I said I would do last night, to apologise for the fact that my information, although it was checked out, was not entirely up to date. My checking out was done at the tail end of the last session of Parliament. What I said last night was in accordance with the facts that I obtained at the end of the last session. My incapacity to re-check was responsible for the error. I am not concerned tonight to point out what political party Mr Mundey belongs to or does not belong to. I do not know what faction of bis political parry he aims to represent. That is not the point that I am getting onto tonight. I think it is very important that the people of Australia should know about the sort of people that Ministers appoint and why they are appointed. The Minister cannot have appointed Mr Mundey because he thought he was a properly qualified man in the two fields specified in my amendment and accepted by Parliament. That cannot have been the reason. We want to know the reason. We want to know why there is such a close association between the left wing of the Labor Party and people like Mr Mundey. I do not really care whether he is a fascist, a communist, a Marxist, a Leninist or anything else. But I think the people of Australia are entitled to know why the Minister appointed him to the Cities Commission. I would like to know also by what method of ministerial machinations or mental processes the Minister arrived at the incredible solution that when Parliament empowered him to appoint two additional members to the Advisory Council of the Cities Commission, who were to be two trained and competent people in the fields of the environment and conservation, it empowered him to appoint this man to that job. By what torturous process did he reach that decision? On any definition, Mr Mundey is not qualified to hold that job, in accordance with what Parliament provided.

My interest in this matter, which I think is well known in this House, goes back to the problem of the inauguration of the regional growth centre of Albury-Wodonga. I can remember, unfortunately I suppose, delaying the Minister for some time 10 months ago on this matter. I delayed the Minister because I have a very real and grave concern for the people of South Australia, for the towns of Renmark, Loxton, Berri, Barmera, Murray Bridge and Mannum, all on the Murray and all in my electorate and also because of the fact that the Government of South Australia has not written into any indenture agreement whatsoever minimum pollution levels that should apply for the protection of South Australia which uses, I believe, 70 per cent now of waters from the Murray to sustain its growth, its industries and its current population. That water is important to South Australia.

Perhaps this aspect is removed from the main point in my speech, but I think that the South Australian Government is negligent for not having written into any indenture agreement properly quantified pollution levels above which the people of South Australia would have some comeback against the Federal Government and the River Murray Commission to protect the future livelihood of their State. This has always been the point that I have taken in the House. My interest in the appointment of 2 properly qualified persons expert in the fields of environment and conservation stems entirely from a belief.

I find myself in the position that I know of the Minister’s last 3 appointments. After 2 meetings, Mr Mundey for one has resigned. I do not know whom the Minister may have in mind to appoint to this important position which could have a lot to do with the environmental factors of the River Murray and which could protect South Australia in the areas that I have already mentioned. I beseech the Minister to tell us tonight when he will conform with the provisions of the amendment moved by me, agreed to by the Parliament and by him as the responsible Minister, to appoint 2 properly qualified people to that advisory board. I think the Minister is fair enough to acknowledge that Parliament is entitled to a proper answer on this matter. I hope that I have explained to him in my speech the sort of thought process which has motivated me tonight in regard to this matter.

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

-Minister for Urban and Regional Development) (10.34)- The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), is a great jar.gonist

Mr Giles:

– A great what?

Mr UREN:

– -Jargonist! He does not really understand the interconnection in environmental matters. I have dealt with him time and time again in regard to the Albury-Wodonga complex. I have said before in regard to the environment that everything is connected to everything else. The Albury-Wodonga complex is connected to the River Murray system which, if the waters or the environment be polluted, will affect the water system of South Australia, as would the water system of Canberra as Canberra is on the Molonglo River which in due course runs into the Murrumbidgee, which runs into the Murray River system. The same can be said of the Bathurst-Orange system. But thiss jargonist keeps resorting to jargon because, he says, he wants to make some criticism of the Albury-Wodonga complex, when in fact it appears that he does not want to look at any of the facts in relation to any of the other towns which are on the same river system.

Mr Giles:

– I rise to take a point of order. I have never at any stage commented in a critical fashion on the establishment of the regional growth centre of Albury-Wodonga. I ask the Minister to stick to the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr Giles:

-It is still the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman claims to have been misrepresented, he has another course when the Minister completes his contribution.

Mr UREN:

-Well, the sad thing about these men who do not understand the interconnection of the various facets of the environment is that they want to make criticism before they have really studied the situation. I have tried not on one occasion but at least on several occasions to try to educate this dull man from the other side of the Parliament. Action was taken by this Government to try to create some form of decentralisation in this nation. In the 23 years in which the Government of the Party which the honourable gentleman opposite, who represents a rural seat, supports was in office, the proportion of the Australian population resident in non-urban areas fell from 31 per cent to 14.7 per cent. This Government is trying to reverse that situation. To try to make our decentralisation policy work, we will draw greatly from the experience that has been gained in Canberra in seeking not to pollute our water systems. At present under constructionit will be in operation in about 2 years- is a water treatment works at the junction of the Molonglo and Murrumbidgee Rivers which will purify water to such an extent that one can drink the water as it is released after treatment of the sewage. Even the nutrients are taken out of the water. The same systems will be used in the development of the Albury-Wodonga scheme.

Dealing with the question of the environment, I point out that no government in Australia’s history has really tried to look at the problems of the environment as this Government has done. Tomorrow I will be tabling the report of the inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Hope of the Supreme Court of New South Wales into the national estate. That report is quite revealing. It is damning and critical of the previous Government for allowing the human environment of this nation to go into decay in the way in which it has. May I say in regard to appointments to the Cities Commission that there was already a wellknown environmentalist, unknown to the -

Mr Giles:

– That is not true.

Mr UREN:

-Unknown -

Mr Giles:

-That is not true.

-Order! I should like to remind all honourable members that a personal explanation must not be debated. The honourable member for Angas is entitled to explain how he has been misrepresented but not to debate any subject in regard to the matter.

Mr GILES:

– I was well on my way to doing that I pointed out the background to the instruction by Parliament to the Minister to appoint 2 people, competent and trained in those 2 fields, to these positions. I pointed out that we moved an amendment to increase the size of the advisory committee for that purpose from eleven to thirteen. In reply the Minister said, and this is where I have been misrepresented, that Dr Walsh was appointed and so was Mr Mundey. That is completely untrue. Dr Walsh was appointed a long while ago. In fact, his appointment as a member of the board was discussed during the debate which goes back to last May. Since that time the Minister has appointed 3 people to the advisory committee- Mrs Gorman, Mrs McCartney -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Now the honourable gentleman is debating the matter.

Mr GILES:

– No, I am pointing out where I have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now debating the matter in full as to what the appointments were. The point in question is where he was misrepresented. I think he has explained that to his satisfaction. I do not want the honourable member to debate the matter, because that is out of order. He has been going for quite some time and personal explanations should be brief and to the point on where he was misrepresented.

Mr GILES:

– Perhaps I can try again. The Minister said- and this is where I have been misrepresented- that Dr Walsh was appointed by him after Parliament instructed the Minister to appoint 2 trained people with environmental and conservation expertise. Dr Walsh- and this is the crux of the matter- was appointed prior to this. As proof of this, I point out that his name was mentioned during the debate at the time. The Minister appointed Mr Mundey, who -

Mr Uren:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker. Hansard has taken a record of this discussion. The honourable member opposite has no right to make false accusations, which is what he is doing now. I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN (Reid-Minister for Urban and Regional Development)- Yes, I do. It is recorded in Hansard that I said there was already one environmentalist on the advisory committee, Dr Walsh. I said at that time it was not recognised by honourable members opposite that there was an environmentalist on the Cities Commission. Because a request was made to have at least 2 environmentalists on the advisory committee, I appointed Jack Mundey, who became the second environmentalist on that committee. That is what I said, and you will see it clearly recorded in Hansard. Actually, Dr Walsh was not appointed in May. He was appointed by the previous Government, not in May. The previous Government in its dying days, in its last fortnight, suddenly became decentralisation minded. In the last fortnight of its 23 years of government it wanted to create a decentralisation policy.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I do not wish to talk about the environment, and I hope when I resume my seat the Minister will not call me a humbug. He has implied that all members on this side of the House are humbugs. The subject I wish to bring before the House could be classified as one I should apologise for even introducing. It may appear to some people to be minor and of little effect for the future of this nation but by the time I conclude my comments I hope I can convince such people that the contrary is the position. Some months ago I wrote to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) on behalf of one of the municipalities in my electorate which was receiving a lot of complaints from primary producers in its area who could not secure supplies of steel points for agricultural machinery. As I said, this may appear to be an insignificant issue but to the primary producers who are desirous of securing these steel points for their agricultural machinery it is important.

I shall quote from the letter I received only today from the Minister. I apologise to the Minister for not notifying him that I intended to raise this matter. In his letter he wrote:

Enquiries by the Department of Manufacturing Industry confirm that despite increased production, local manufacturers have been unable to fully meet the demand from primary producers for steel points and have had to introduce quotas on deliveries to distributors. The major causes of the shortfall in supply have been, I understand, the very substantial increase in demands for these goods over recent times, and the inability of the manufacturers concerned to obtain increased supplies of the specialised steel for their production.

That is not good enough. The Minister refers to a ‘substantial increase in demand’. Why is there a demand? This is not a type of item that primary producers hoard. The demand exists because such articles cannot be purchased. The demand has been aggravated for 12 to 18 months. The Minister’s letter continues:

As you will be aware, there is a general shortage of steel products in Australia at this time. You will be aware that the Government has no powers to direct any industry to give preference in supply to particular customers or markets. However, the Government is in continuing contact with local steel producers and has received assurance that cases of genuine hardship are receiving special attention in respect of supplies. The industry’s response earlier this year to the special needs of primary producers in flood devastated areas for fencing wire and steel fence posts is an example of priority being accorded in special circumstances. I assure you the Government is sympathetic to the needs of primary producers.

With the aim of supplementing local supplies with imported products, the Australian Government has eased the criteria by which by-law entry into Australia is governed and has, where appropriate, authorised entry under by-law of goods for which such application has been made to the Department of Customs and Excise, so enabling raw materials and manufactured foods which are in short supply to be imported free of customs duty. Approvals have been granted to import certain categories of steel under these provisions.

This is much appreciated, but it is not the answer. The letter concludes:

I regret that I am unable to indicate more precisely when steel supplies will improve to the extent of resolving the associated shortages of steel points. It does seem, however, that the Australian steel industry is doing all it can to meet demand with available resources and that supplies are being allocated on an equitable basis. There have been some recent indications that the present high level of demand for steel may moderate in the near future.

I am not blaming the Minister for not being able to supply steel points for, basically, wheat farmers. I am raising this matter tonight because I believe the issue goes far beyond the question of steel points. K goes far beyond the shortage of barbed wire, fencing wire, fencing posts and other commodities which are in big demand throughout Australia. One cannot buy materials. Why?

Mr James:

– There is a boom on.

Mr KING:

– I do not know what the honourable member means by a boom but I do know that if he were trying to secure some of these materials he would have difficulty in getting them. Why is this the position? I believe there are several reasons. I am somewhat inclined to direct my criticisms initially at the Prices Justification Tribunal which is very quick to point out that certain companies are making too much profit on certain goods and is knocking back applications for price increases. Naturally I think immediately of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. There are plenty of people who say: ‘Think of the millions of dollars profit BHP made last year. ‘ That does not mean a thing to me. I am not interested in its profit unless I know how its profit is related to the capital invested in it. I wonder what sort of dividend BHP is paying in relation to the total capital invested in it. I wonder how that dividend compares with present-day interest rates.

I suppose if there is any one reason for a shortage of material it can be attributed to limited production. But why is there limited production? I suggest it is because there is a lack of confidence in certain sectors, including BHP, in expanding at a reasonable pace to maintain supplies. It is all very well to say that we can import goods but what we want is manufacturing in Australia. If anyone disputes my comments about lack of confidence by BHP one has only to read tonight’s metropolitan Press and references therein to the share market. For the first time for many years BHP shares have fallen to a value below $5.

Mr McVeigh:

-Is that true?

Mr KING:

– Yes, BHP shares are down to $4.88. Not many weeks ago the Treasurer (Mr Crean) said that he believed that BHP shares would be a good buy at $8. Today they are worth $4.88. It is just as well that not too many people listened to the Treasurer on that occasion. Unfortunately many of us had to listen to him last night. However in a period of about 18 months BHP shares have dropped from $14 to less than $5. This is a reason for steel shortages throughout Australia. I have raised the matter of steel points for agricultural machinery but my comments are not limited to agricultural machinery; they relate to many aspects of steel production. If the Government continues on its present lines we will continue to find ourselves in a position where we will not be able to purchase the steel we require.

As I said earlier, I apologise for not notifying the Minister that I intended to speak on this subject tonight. Nevertheless I. do not expect an answer from him because, after all, he had carried out a certain amount of investigation. However I repeat what I said a moment ago: This is not a case of easing import restrictions or bringing goods in under customs by-laws free of duty. That is not the answer. In Australia we need to develop industry and the only way this can be done is by creating confidence. I have mentioned BHP. It is a firm whose confidence should be encouraged. Lest any honourable member is critical of my comments and suggests that I am trying to protect BHP I hasten to assure such member that that is far from being the fact. I am not personally interested in BHP but I am interested in making sure that manufacturing industries, including BHP and other firms, have sufficient confidence to enable them to expand to meet the demands of our expanding production.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 1513

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Department of the Northern Territory: Research Grants (Question No. 81)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

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.
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.

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

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

and (2) Research grants have been made to the following organisations in the last 3 years:

University of Sydney Crocodile Research Program, for research into saltwater crocodiles, $4,000 during 1972 and $10,000 during 1973.

Australian Mineral Industries Research Association Limited, for non-destructive testing of wire ropes, $1,333 during 1972.

Department of Overseas Trade: Appointment of Women (Question No. 98)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

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

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

1 ) to (3 ) I refer the right honourable member to the reply given by the Prime Mimister on 24th July to Question No. 97 in respect of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Department of Services and Property: Appointment of Women (Question No. 104)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972.
Who are they.
To what position has each been appointed and what is the function of the position.

Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister in answer to Question No. 97 on page 625 of Hansard dated 24 July 1974.

Department of the Northern Territory: Appointment of Women (Question No. 109)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972.
Who are they.
To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

1 ) to (3 ) Please see the answer provided to question upon notice No 97 appearing in Hansard of 24 July 1974 at page 625.

Department of the Environment and Conservation: Appointment of Women (Question No. 121)

Mr Snedden:

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

1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972.
Who are they.
To what position has each been appointed and what is the function of the position.

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

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

I draw the right honourable member’s attention to the Prime Minister’s answer to a similar question. (Hansard 24 July 1974 Page 625).

Department of Tourism and Recreation: Appointment of Women (Question No. 124)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972.
Who are they.
) To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.

Mr Stewart:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Information on recruitment to the Public Service generally is detailed in the Public Service Board Annual Report and the Board’s regular statistical Bulletins. The Prime Minister has indicated to the right honourable member that the information he seeks may be available from these sources. He has also indicated that these publications are being expanded to provide more detail on the employment of women in the Public Service.

Department of Education: Foreign Aid Functions (Question No. 139)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

What foreign aid functions are still administered by his Department.
Which of them are to be transferred to the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

1 ) Prior to the establishment of the Office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency, my Department, on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs, provided services (e.g. placement in institutions and supervision of studies) for overseas students sponsored under various Australian Government aid schemes, such as the Colombo Plan.

My Department is at present continuing to provide these services on behalf of the Office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency. A full transfer to the Agency is at present being negotiated and will be effected in the near future. The Agency will also assume responsibility for the Scheme of Commonwealth Co-operation in Education, which hitherto has been a responsibility of my Department. The Scheme includes the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, which has both aid and non-aid components. My Department will retain the non-aid component of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, which involves academic awards to students and senior visitors from the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

When the planned transfer takes place, my Department will no longer have responsibility for foreign aid functions.

Joint Committee on Prices: Government Action (Question No. 141)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What action has been taken by the Government pursuant to the reports by the Joint Committee on Prices on (a) meat prices, (b) import prices, (c) meatmeal prices and (d) carpet tile prices.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Stabilisation of Meat Prices

Recommendation (i)

The Government rejected the recommendation for an export tax on beef. Following an examination of the position with regard to supplies and prices, the Government directed the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to investigate the costs involved in the marketing of cattle, sheep and pigs. Special reference was made to the composition of the margin between the prices paid to primary producers for animals slaughtered and the retail prices paid by consumers for meat products. A report on the investigation was tabled in Parliament on 2 April 1 974.

The Consumer Price Index shows that the price of meat has fallen in recent months.

Recommendation (ii)

The Government decided to hold in abeyance the recommendation that the meat industry be requested to restrict voluntarily beef exports. In fact there has been no need for restraint on beef exports owing to the poor demand from overseas markets. In JanuaryJuly 1 974 shipments of beef were little more than half those in the corresponding period of 1 973.

Recommendation (iii)

This recommendation is no longer relevant as United States livestock producers ceased withholding stock from the market following the lifting of the U.S. beef price freeze on 9 September 1 973.

Recommendation (iv)

The representative body of the pig industry has indicated that it wishes to undertake promotion of the industry’s products with funds based on a slaughter levy and has approached the Government seeking legislation for the introduction of such a levy. The Government has announced that it will introduce the necessary legislation.

Recommendation (v)

The Minister for Agiculture has announced that he intends to review the composition, powers and functions of all marketing boards, including the Meat Board.

Recommendation (vi)

The recommendation to establish a Government sponsored and financed consumer organisation is under consideration.

Recommendation (vii)

In order to obtain information on sales under forward contracts the Australian Meat board held discussions with the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council and approached a number of major exporters regarding the collection of such data. Data have been collected from exporters but in the past six months the poor export demand and low level of forward contracts has meant that such information is of little value. The Board will continue to maintain its contact with exporters so that when business returns to more normal levels a better assessment will be possible.

Import Prices Inquiry

The following references are to paragraphs in the chapter on ‘Findings and Recommendations’ in the Committee’s Report No. 1. First recommendation is numbered (vi).

Recommendation (vi)

On 18 February 1974 the Minister for Transport wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Prices. He pointed out that the overseas cargo shipping provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971-72 related only to outward trades. This is still the position under the Trade Practices Act 1974. Nevertheless, enquiries have been made overseas on the manner in which liner freight rates on imported cargoes are adjusted when currency relativities alter. In the United Kingdom, Europe and Japan shipper bodies negotiate these arrangements with the Conferences concerned. They have agreed on the application of currency adjustment factors to the tariff which are calculated to ensure that shipowners neither profit nor lose by changes in costs and/or revenues due to fluctuations in the relativity between the tariff currency and the currencies in which costs are incurred. In the United Kingdom to Australia trade, for example, a monthly review of this adjustment factor has been mads since late 1972 by the British Shippers’ Council and the Conference. In the trade from the United States of America to Australia, where there is no shipper body, the regulatory authority, the Federal Maritime Commission, adopts a similar policy. It makes every endeavour to limit currency surcharges to amounts no greater than are required to maintain the integrity of the carrier’s basic rate structure.

Recommendation (vii)

The practice by which associations of timber importers recommend prices and profit margins to their members (referred to in paragraphs 66-69 and 74 of the report on import prices) was referred to the Commissioner of Trade Practices under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971-72. The Trade Practices Act 1974 includes provisions that cover this practice more clearly than the above Act.

Recommendation (viii)

The possible need for legislation to give effect to the recommendation that information be obtained on products in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is currently under investigation.

The Department of Health is, however, continuing to seek information on actual costs and other relevant financial information from pharmaceutical companies.

Price of Meatmeal

Recommendation (i)

The practice by which some meatmeal manufacturers consult on the establishment of list prices for the industry was referred to the Commissioner of Trade Practices.

Recommendation (ii)

Subsequent to the Joint Committee’s report, the power of the Australian Government to regulate the export of meatmeal under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations has been applied more stringently, primarily to ensure that the domestic market continues to have priority in the use of available supplies.

On 20 February 1974 the Minister for Agriculture announced that his Department would not issue further permits for the export of meatmeal until such time as shortages on the domestic market were overcome. Since that time the outlook has altered; protein meals have become more readily available on the international market; supplies of substitute protein meals have been taken up by local users; the price of meatmeal on the domestic market has generally declined and limited exportable surpluses have developed in most States. In these circumstances limited exports of meatmeal have been approved but, in view of the relatively low levels of livestock slaughterings and meatmeal production, market circumstances will be kept under review and the export restrictions will be applied as necessary.

d ) Price of Carpet Tiles

The Trade Practices Act 1974 includes provisions designed to bring about a more competitive climate in retail pricing as well as in other areas. In addition the Trade Practices Commission provided for in that Act is able to inform the public of the kinds of benefits obtainable by comparative shopping.

The major company mentioned in the report has been contacted by the Department of Manufacturing

Industry and advises that it no longer issues recommended prices to retailers unless specifically requested.

The Committee’s report has also been brought to the attention of members of the Textile and Apparel Industry Advisory Panel and the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards.

Northern Territory: Price Control (Question No. 153)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

1 ) What goods and services are subject to Government price control in the Northern Territory.
What is the nature of the control and when was the control imposed.
What was the average percentage increase in (a) the purchase price of new Government housing, (b) Government housing and flat rentals, (c) telephone services, (d) transport charges, and (e) property rates during 1 973.
What was the average percentage increase in (a) the purchase price of new non-Government housing and (b) non-Government housing and flat rentals during 1973.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

and (2) Goods and Services subject to price control are:

Bread: Darwin, imposed 28.8.73.

Beer: Northern Territory wide, imposed 7.8.73.

Cigarettes and tobacco: Northern Territory wide, imposed 22.10.73.

Milk: Darwin, imposed 18.3.74.

Soft drinks: Darwin, imposed 26. 10.73.

Control is exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Prices Regulation Ordinance.

Justified prices have been negotiated for.

General Practitioners ‘fees: Northern Territory wide.

Meat: Darwin/Katherine

Bread: Katherine

Breakfast foods: Darwin

Fees and prices were negotiated with representatives of the General Practitioners and Retail Traders. Controls will be imposed only if the justified prices are ignored.

(a) The average percentage increase in the purchase price to tenants of Government housing in the Northern Territory was approximately 25 per cent.
1. Nil.
2. Charges for telephone services generally rose on an Australia wide basis during 1973.

The charges were:

Connection fees, $50 to $60

Transfer fees, $5 to $30

Removal fees, $50 to $30

Rentals- exchange lines on continuous exchange, $37 to $55

Rentals- exchange lines on restricted exchanges, $27 to $35

Rentals for some switchboard equipment also increased.

Shipping Freight charges of the two main domestic lines serving the Northern Territory- Australian National Line and State Shipping Services, did not vary during 1973. Reliable figures on Territory road transport charges are not available.
Property rates are levied in Darwin and Alios Springs and are based on the Unimproved Capital Value of each property. The following rates in the dollar were levied:

Darwin-1972, 1.65 cents; 1973, 1.76 cents: 6 per cent increase.

Alice Springs-1972, 1.4 cents; 1973, 2.05 cents: 4.6 per cent increase.

(a) The average purchase price of new dwellings decreased between October 1 972 and September 1 973.
1. Houses

b ) Reliable figures are not available.

Australian Government European Awards Scheme (Question No. 156)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

1 ) When did the Government introduce the Australian Government European Awards Scheme.
What is the estimated cost of the Scheme for (a) 1973-74 and (b) 1974-75.
How many awards have been made, and what was their (a) value and (b) purpose in each case.
Has the Government adopted a similar scheme in (a) South-East Asia, (b) the Pacific Region, (c) Africa, (d) North America and (e) South America.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

The Australian European Awards Program was introduced in July 1973 basically to reciprocate the various offers made by European countries to Australian students.
–
1. During 1973-74 the Scheme was not fully operational. The cost was $23,085.
2. It is anticipated that the Scheme will be fully operational in 1974-75 at an estimated cost of $90,000.
Until 30 June 1974, 13 postgraduate awards had been made. In a full year of operation the Program provides for twenty awards. These are primarily for an academic year of postgraduate study at Australian tertiary institutions. There is also limited provision for senior fellowships to enable eminent European academics and educationists to visit Australia for study programs of up to three months.

The first postgraduate award was taken up in February 1974.

The benefits provided for postgraduate scholars are return economy air fares to and from Australia, a living allowance of $2,925 per annum, a marriage allowance of $700 per annum and a dependants allowance of $234 per annum, in addition to other miscellaneous expenses. The senior fellowships provide for a first-class return air fare and a daily allowance.
The thirteen award holders, their fields of study and institutions are as follows:

This program aplies only to European countries. However, there is provision under several existing Australian Government schemes (e.g. Colombo Plan, Commonwealth Co-operation in Education, South Pacific Aid Program) for students from a large number of countries to study in Australia.

Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises (Question No. 161)

Mr Lynch:

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

Is detailed advice provided to persons whose applications for loans from the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises are rejected.
If so, does this advice (a) clearly outline the reasons for rejection, (b) suggest ways in which the rejected application could be altered to secure approval or (c) indicate the type and scope of undertakings which are most likely to secure approval.
If not, are applicants for loans advised of rejection by means of a standard letter.
What is the (a) number and (b) classification of personnel within the Economic Development Branch of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) & (3) Suggestions and advice are normally provided to applicants in the course of investigations of their applications for loans from the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises. Reasons for rejection are not normally given when applications for loans are rejected. People whose applications have been rejected are usually advised by means of a standard letter

At the time the question was asked, the number of personnel within the Economic Development Branch was 25, as follows:

In April a new organisation structure was introduced for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and officers previously employed in the Economic Development Branch have been transferred to new positions within the new organisation structure.

Applications for Migration to Australia (Question No. 181)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

How many (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications for migration to Australia from (i) the Philippines, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) Malaysia, (iv) Singapore and (v) India have been processed by his Department in each of the last 5 years and in 1974 to 1 July, listing Caucasian applicants separately.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Statistics on successful applicants for entry to Australia from the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and India are only available from July 1971. Applicants approved in the ensuing financial years are:

Reliable comparative statistics for total applicants are available only from 1 January 1974. For the period I January to 30 June 1 974 they are:

Note:

Past experience in other countries including Britain has been that a spontaneous upsurge of unsponsored migrant applications, resulting from unusual circumstances attended by publicity, usually contain a disproportionate number of applicants clearly unable to meet normal entry requirements.
Some applicants withdraw their application prior to determination.
There are always some applications still waiting assessment.

Public Service: Office Space (Question No. 231)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

Further to Question No. 1106 of 16 October 1973 does he have available to him now a figure which his Department is using as a planning basis for predicted office accommodation for the Public Service as at June 1 974.
If so, what is the figure.
If not, how does he and his Department plan ahead on the needs of departments for office space.
Is he responsible for the overall accommodation of Public Service departments or is this a matter determined solely by each individual department.

Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) As at June 1974 departments occupied 1.75 million square metres of office accommodation overall.

This figure is under continuous review but is currently used as a basis for predicting overall needs.

Yes, I am responsible.

Australian Government Office Accommodation (Question No. 232)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice: () Will he be tabling or releasing the report by the interdepartmental committee on Australian Government office accommodation.

Is the inter-departmental committee still operating.
If so, what is its composition, and what studies is it currently undertaking.

Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Committee is no longer operating and any reports that were prepared by it were used for inter- > nal planning purposes. I do not propose to release them. Since coming to office the Government has faced an enormous task in providing adequate accommodation for Australian Government purposes (including suitable accommodation for members of the Australian Parliament) and also in correcting the imbalance which developed during the period of office of the former Government, between the amount of office accommodation which it owns and which it leases in privately owned buildings.

Although it will take some time to achieve these objectives my department is pursuing them actively.

Buildings Owned by Australian Government (Question No. 234)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

1 ) Will he provide a list of all buildings owned by the Australian Government in each capital city within a radius of one mile of the GPO.
What is their location, and what is the total land space, occupied by them.
How old is each building.

Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The information sought is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the time and expense which would be involved in compiling such information. However if the right honourable member would indicate his interest in any particular buildings I shall be happy to provide him with the information he requires.

Overseas Students (Question No. 244)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

How many students from overseas countries are attending (a) each of Australia’s universities and (b) other tertiary institutions.
How many of the students in each category are sponsored financially in some way by the Australian Government

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

At 30 June 1973 there was a total of 4,877 students from overseas countries attending Australian universities and approximately 2,216 overseas students attending other tertiary institutions. The latter figure does not include a number of private overseas students attending teachers colleges for whom details are unavailable.
Of the 2,2 1 6 overseas students attending other tertiary institutions, 365 were being sponsored financially in some way by the Australian Government.

Details of sponsorship of overseas students attending Ausralian universities are provided below:

Australia’s Trade Relations: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 273)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

Is there any inter-departmental committee or committees dealing with any aspects of Australia’s trading relations with (a) New Zealand (b) Japan (c) the United States (d) Great Britain (e) the European Economic Community (f) the Soviet Union (g) China (h) India (i) Indonesia and (j ) any other countries.
If so will he name the committee or committees concerned.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

The only inter-departmental committee with an established structure and continuing role is related to Japan. Issues relating to trading relationships with other countries are handled in inter-departmental committees on an ad hoc basis as required.
) Inter-Departmental Committee on Japan.

Department of Overseas Trade: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 330)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth Departments in the last twelve months.
What is the division and classification of these officers.
How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions m the Service.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

1) A total of 101 officers received some form of formal training in these procedures during the year ( 2 )

Ofthistotal- 75 were operational staff 26 were occupants of financial or accounting positions.

Family Law Bill (Question No. 338)

Mr Snedden:

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

Does the Attorney-General intend to alter the family law legislation to take account of views expressed by State Ministers for Child Welfare that children continue to be supervised and advised by State welfare officers.

Mr Enderby:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

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

No such amendment of the Family Law Bill is necessary. The Bill enables State and Territory child welfare officers to be used as welfare officers for the purpose of the Act. It also enables other persons, including welfare officers employed in the Australian Public Service, to be used or appointed as welfare officers. Whether it will be necessary as a matter of good administration to use welfare officers other than State and Territory welfare officers remains, of course, to be seen.

Western Australia: Building Workers Industrial Union (Question No. 343)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

1 ) Has he received a request from the Building Workers’ Industrial Union in Western Australia for the introduction of a new system of tax assessment for workers on overtime or shift work.
If so, what is the Government’s attitude to this request.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

and (2) The Government has not considered the matter.

Department of Services and Property: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 345)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

1 ) How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last twelve months.
What is the division and classification of these officers.
How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.

Mr Daly:
ALP

Department of the Northern Territory: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 358)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

1 ) How many officers of his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
What is the division and classification of these officers.
How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). Please see the answer provided to question upon notice No. 329 appearing in Hansard of 24 July 1974, pages 626 and 627.

Australian Industry: Sick Leave (Question No. 360)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

1 ) How many hours were lost due to sick leave in Australian industry in each of the last 10 years.
What was the average number of hours lost per employee due to absence from work on sick leave in each of those years.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

and (2) Statistics relating to the amount of sick leave taken in Australia for each of the years requested are not available. However, my Department has from time to time undertaken studies of industrial absence in this country. The most recent was a survey of absence attributed to sickness and accidents undertaken for October 1973, the results of which will be published shortly in the Personnel Practice Bulletin. The survey covered 1,065 establishments in a range of industries throughout Australia. For statistical reasons, entirely reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the survey concerning sickness absence in Australian industry generally. However, a rough approximation can be arrived at by relating the survey findings on absence rates for Industry groups to the industrial distribution of wage and salary earners in the Australian labour force and deducting estimates of time lost through industrial accidents and diseases. On this basic, the total number of hours lost through absence attributed to sickness in 1973 is estimated at about 360 million. This represents an average of approximatley 75 hours per employee for that year.

Applications for Permanent Residence in Australia (Question No. 363)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

How many applications were received for permanent residence in Australia from citizens from (a) Burma, (b) Thailand, (c) Cambodia, (d) Laos, (e) North Vietnam, (f) South Vietnam, (g) Malaysia, (h) Singapore, (i) Indonesia, (j) the Philippines, (k) Japan, (1) South Korea, (m) India, (n) Pakistan, (o) Bangladesh and (p) Sri Lanka during 1973.
How many of these applications were approved in each case.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Migrant application statistics are maintained by country of application and not by citizenship. Comparable statistics for total applicants in respect of most of the countries mentioned are available only from January 1974. Migrant applications received in the period 1 January 1 974 to 30 June 1974 were:

Applicants approved for migrant entry during 1973 and for 1 January 1974 to 30 June 1974 were:

Note:

Past experience in other countries including Britain has been that a spontaneous upsurge of unsponsored migrant applications, resulting from unusual circumstances attended by publicity, usually contain a disproportionate number of applications clearly unable to meet normal entry requirements.
Some applicants withdraw their application prior to determination.
There are always some applications still waiting assessment.

Tertiary Education (Question No. 371)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

1 ) Does he support the request by the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations for an inquiry into tertiary education.
What is his attitude to the Federation’s view that there should be a single national body to co-ordinate tertiary education.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

1 ) and (2) This question raises a matter of policy. When a decision has been made by the Government it will be announced.

Merrys Lane, West Launceston: Sale of Commonwealth Land (Question No. 386)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

Has the Government decided not to sell an area of Commonwealth land in Merrys Lane, West Launceston.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

The Government has sold the area of land in Merrys Lane, West Launceston to the State of Tasmania for amalgamation with other land held by the State to enable the proper planned development of an aged persons home complex.

Australian Industries Council (Question No. 431)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

What progress has been made toward the formation of an Australian Industries Council.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The honourable member will be aware of the Prime Minister’s announcement on 18 July 1974 that the Government has established a Committee to advise it on appropriate policies for the development of manufacturing industry. The Committee’s report will be published as a Green Paper.

The terms of reference require, among other things, the Committee to advise on communication between the Australian Government and the private sector and the State governments with respect to the development and implementation of appropriate policies for the development of manufacturing industry. Accordingly I consider it desirable to await the Committee’s findings before taking the matter any further.

Department of the Environment and Conservation: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 434)

Mr Snedden:

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

1 ) How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
What is the division and classification of these officers.
) How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting positions in the Service.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

I draw the right honourable member’s attention to the Prime Minister’s answer to a similar question. (Hansard, 24 July 1974, page 626.)

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 435)

Mr Snedden:

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

How many officers in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
What is the division and classification of these officers.
How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

1) One officer received training in Financial Management during 1973-74.
Director, Class 10, Third Division, Establishments and Finance.
At the time the officer concerned had a responsibility for the Finance Section of the Department.

Department of Tourism and Recreation: Financial Training of Officers (Question No. 451)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

1 ) How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
) What is the division and classification of these officers.
How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

Unemployment (Question No. 467)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

What is the structure of unemployment in socioeconomicdemographic terms for males and females in country as opposed to metropolitan employment districts, e.g. migrant, above 50 year old male labourers, Aborigines, skilled, unskilled, female office employees, graduates, etc.
What is the typical duration of unemployment for people in country as opposed to metropolitan employment districts.
Are there any measures of permanent unemployed which would show- any variation between country and metropolitan unemployed.
Do the present aggregate figures of unemployed persons accurately describe the market for labour if a level of unemployed is a permanent and inescapable part of the labour situation.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) My Department from time to time conducts a detailed analysis of the characteristics of persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The most recent analysis for which results are available was conducted in July 1972: although a similar analysis was undertaken in July 1 974 the results are not yet available.

The following 4 tables derived from the July 1972 analysis provide an indication of the comparative structure of unemployment as between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas as a whole at that time.

The statistics of registered unemployed compiled by my Department are not claimed to represent a total measure of all unemployed at a given time. It is considered that a more comprehensive measure of total unemployment in the community is provided by the Quarterly Labor Force Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For example, in May 1974 (the latest date for which figures from this source are available) the CES figure of persons registered for employment was 82 per cent of the figure of unemployed published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The report of the Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics (pages 25 and 26) referred in some detail to this matter.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the higher coverage of the figures of unemployed published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics it is inevitable that a certain element of “hidden” or “disguised” unemployment, i.e. persons who are not actively seeking work but who would do so if work were readily available, particularly in non-metropolitan areas, is not accounted for in the published statistics. At any point of time there will be some individuals who experience greater difficulty than others in obtaining employment and will remain registered as unemployed for longer periods. The proportion of the unemployed in this harder to place category fluctuates with the state of the economy and overall demand for labor. I do not see the inclusion of unemployed in this category in the aggregate figures invalidating the figures as an indicator of labor market trends.

Australian Public Service: Flexi-time (Question No. 468)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

1 ) Has an evaluation of the benefits of the introduction of flexi-time to some Departments of the Australian Public Service been carried out.
If so, what have been the main advantages and disadvantages.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

1 ) and (2) The Public Service Board has advised me that a comprehensive and objective evaluation has yet to be made of the several different flexible working hours trials now being conducted in a number of departments in the Australian Public Service. In March 1974, the Board decided that enough trials were running to enable a full evaluation to be conducted before moving to the introduction of flexible working hours on a permanent basis. No new trials are therefore being approved which involve ‘settlement periods’ of longer than one day.

The evaluation proposed by the Board requires the cooperation of the departments and the staff organisations. The proposals have been tested with departments and discussions have taken place with the staff organisations but the agreement of the staff organisations on the ways and means of evaluating the trials has not yet been obtained.

The purpose of conducting experiments in new patterns of working times was to enable assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of various different patterns, in comparison with each other and with standard working hours. Until a full evaluation is made, the Board is not able to give a firm view on the advantages and disadvantages of flexible working hours, particularly as regards the efficiency and productivity of departmental administration. It is, of course, clear that there are considerable advantages in flexible working hours to individual public servants, who are able to combine better their official and their private commitments.

Individual departments have reported on trials as they have been running. Some of the advantages claimed were improved morale and better co-operation among staff, increased productivity, reduction in absenteeism and provision of services to the public over a wider span of hours. On the other hand, some of the disadvantages claimed were communication and supervision difficulties, unavailability of staff outside ‘core-times’ and administrative complexity.

The Government wants to see flexible working hours tested as thoroughly as possible, having regard to the interests of the Government as an employer and of the many employees who may benefit.

Australian Capital Territory: Land Lease Procedures (Question No. 485)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

1 ) What are the current procedures involved between the stages when a block of land for detached housing in Canberra is passed over by the National Capital Development Commission to his Department and the stage when that block of land is in the hands of the person or builder to build on it.
What is the average time currently involved in these procedures.
Has he had these processes reviewed lately, and has he any proposals to shorten the time involved.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

to (3) The National Capital Development Commission advises the Department of the Capital Territory some months before a block is serviced that it is expected to be serviced and available for lease in a particular month.

This enables the Department to complete its administrative procedures before servicing of the site and the final land survey is finalised.

The result is that the Department is usually waiting on the Commission and the Department of Services and Property (which carries out the field survey) to complete their tasks. As soon as advice is received that this work is complete, the site is referred to either the Waiting List Pool or the Builder’s Pool for immediate allocation to individuals and builders respectively.

A pool of blocks is maintained in both of these areas so that a reasonable selection is available from which those eligible to take up a lease can make a choice.

Australian Capital Territory: ‘Spec’ Builders (Question No. 487)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

Did he say, as reported in The Courier of Thursday, 28 March 1974 that ‘spec’ builders were victimising home purchasers in the Australian Capital Territory.
If so, what evidence has he to support this statement.
Does he oppose the operation of ‘spec’ builders in the Australian Capital Territory.
Is it a fact that reputable ‘spec’ builders have an important role to play in home building in the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

to (4) I replied to a statement made by a private builder which criticised the present arrangement under which freelance builders obtain a quota of residential leases on which to build homes for sale at controlled reasonable prices. I did not say that ‘spec’ builders were victimising home purchasers in the Australian Capital Territory.

I appreciate the role project builders play in the Canberra scene and have publicly acknowledged this.

The report published in the Courier misinterpreted and gave undue prominence to my personal concern that people should be able to procure custom built homes cheaply and that their choice is tending to be limited to a selection from project design homes.

Australian Capital Territory: Leases for Residential Housing (Question No. 488)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What are the details of the average costs of serviced blocks of land to applicants seeking blocks for (a) houses, (b) group schemes, (c) flats and (d) town houses since 1 July 1973.
How do these costs compare with prices for similar land sold at auction for similar periods in 1 97 1 and 1 972 .

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

1 ) (a) and (b) One auction only of leases for residential housing was held after 1 July 1973 after which the present allocation arrangement was introduced. The average price of all residential leases sold at that auction was $10,560 and for group blocks alone $15,101.

The average price of leases allocated under the new scheme up to 30 June 1974 to both individuals and freelance builders is $5,583. Under this scheme there is no separate provision for group allocations

(c) and (d) Leases of sites for flats and town houses permit some flexibility in the number of units to be built on each site. The average price per block does not provide a useful means of comparison. However the average price paid per residential unit for such leases was $6,56 1 at the one auction held after 1 July 1973 and $4,407 for all leases allocated from that time up to 30 June 1 974.

Australian Capital Territory: Allocation of Land (Question No. 489)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

1 ) What is the new method of making serviced blocks of land available to applicants for (a) private housing, (b) group schemes, (c) town houses and (d) flats in the Australian Capital Territory.
) In what way does the new policy differ from the former method of making serviced blocks available.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

(a) and (b) Since October 1973 leases have been granted to freelance builders and to people registered on a waiting list at prices equal to the rating value of the lease as at I January 1973 less 30 per cent. Those people eligible to register on the waiting list have been voluntary transferees from the old rental housing waiting list, persons who had never previously held an interest in land and, more recently, those who live and work in the Australian Capital Territory and have not held title to land in the Australian Capital Territory during the past five years. A deposit of $ 100 is required from people registering on the list.

Applicants reaching the top of the waiting list are offered a choice of land on hand. After making a selection they are given one month in which to confirm the availability of building finance before they are required to pay for and take up the lease.

Freelance builders have each been given a quota of leases based on their building performance in the Australian Capital Territory over the past three years or proof of their capacity to complete homes within the specified period. They can nominate the time when they wish to take their allocation and are given as wide a choice as possible having regard to the number of serviced blocks on hand.

Builders are given three months in which to have building plans approved and to pay for and take up the leases. When a house has been completed the builder is not permitted to transfer the lease without obtaining approval of his selling price. This is aimed at ensuring as far as possible that the lease is passed on to the end purchaser at a price no greater than was paid for it by the builder.

Control over the price at which leases may be transferred is maintained for a period of five years in respect of leases granted both to individuals and to builders.

1 ) (c) and (d) Since October 1973 the practice has been to invite tenders for leases of sites for residential flats and town houses. A reserve price is fixed in the same manner as for ordinary residential leases, that is, the rating value as at 1 January 1973 less 30 per cent. A lease is offered to the applicant who offers the highest amount providing this is not less than the nominated reserve price.

Home-seekers interested in medium density type housing have been invited to form or join co-operatives which, upon registration, can be eligible to seek the grant of a lease of a site for flats or town houses. Leases are available to these cooperatives upon payment of the reserve price calculated in the manner explained above.

Prior to October 1973 standard residential sites were offered at public auction in restricted, unrestricted and group categories with reserve price calculated to return overall the cost of providing serviced land, but weighted to reflect the rating values placed on individual sites.

Sites for residential flats and town houses were also offered at public auction with reserve prices fixed at 75 per cent of the assessed current market value.

Australian Capital Territory: Housing (Question No. 491)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister of the Capital Territory, upon notice:

1 ) What is the expected population growth rate in the Australian Capital Territory in 1974.
How many blocks of land will be available for pur- chase in 1974.
How many of these blocks will be available for (a) flats, (b) town houses and (c) detached housing.
How many new Government houses will be built in 1974.
Approximately how many people will these new dwellings accommodate.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

1 ) A recent estimate indicated that the Australian Capital Territory population increased by about 2300 in the first quarter of 1 974, a growth rate of 7. 1 2 per cent.

The National Capital Development Commission expects that the growth rate will continue more or less at the same level for the balance of 1 974.

and (3) The National Capital Development Commission has advised that land servicing programmes are calculated on a financial year basis rather than a calendar year basis and that firm figures are not available. The best available estimate indicates that a total of around 4450 sites for residential units will be made available for lease in 1974, made up’ as follows:
1. About 20 sites for residential flats which will provide for between 1 200 and 1800 residential units.
2. About 430 sites for town houses which will provide about 800 residential units.
3. About 4000 sites for detached housing.
The National Capital Development Commission completed 429 dwelling units in the six months ended 30 June 1974 and expects to achieve a further turn-off of about 750 units during the remainder of 1 974.
The 1 1 79 Government owned dwelling units would be expected to accommodate about 4700 people.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740918_reps_29_hor90/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives18 September 1974

NOTICE OF MOTION

Censure of Whitlam Government

Mr DALY:Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Motion of Censure

Mr SNEDDEN:Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

Mr Nixon:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Lloyd:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McLeay:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Lloyd:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Lloyd:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Whitlam:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Dr Jenkins:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Young:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Peacock:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Peacock:

Mr SNEDDEN:

Mr Speaker:

Mr Anthony:

Mr WHITLAM:Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Dr Forbes:

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr Staley:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Staley:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr Sinclair:

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr Sinclair:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr Sinclair:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Daly:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr Forbes:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr Forbes:

Mr SPEAKER:

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

Child Endowment

Universal Health Scheme

Australian Capital Territory: Self Government

National Health Scheme

Mr Georgi Ermolenko

Palace Hotel, Perth

Pornographic Literature and Films

Baltic States

Jervis Bay: Heavy Industry

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr WHITLAM:Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr HAYDEN:Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA

Mr BARNARD:Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

House of Representatives
18 September 1974

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

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

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP