House of Representatives
26 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2755

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Metric System

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

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant, Mr Lynch, Mr Anthony, Mr Gorton, Mr Adermann, Mr Bonnett, Mr Bouchier, Mr Cadman, Mr Donald Cameron, Mrs Child, Mr Cope, Mr Corbett, Mr Cross, Mr Duthie, Mr Erwin, Mr Fisher, Mr Garrick, Mr Innes, Mr James, Mr Jarman, Dr Jenkins, Mr Keogh, Mr Killen, Mr King, Mr Lamb, Mr Macphee, Mr Mathews, Mr Millar, Mr Nixon, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Oldmeadow, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Staley, Mr Street, Mr Thorburn, Mr Wentworth and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That the Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an AustralianGovernment Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bungey, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Dawkins, Mr Drury, Mr England, Mr Garland, Mr Garrick, Mr Graham, Mr Hyde, Mr Jacobi, Mr Jarman, and Mr Viner.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private Insurance Industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrHurford.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Lead to nationalisation of the insurance industry.
  2. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a national disaster fund than that provided by the insurance industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  3. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  4. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Further shrink theflow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Nuclear Power

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

Whereas the use of nuclear fission for power generation presents unacceptable hazards to life, and

Whereas plentiful supplies of energy are essential if there is not to be severe social and industrial dislocation in this period of intensifying population pressure on rapidly disappearing and quite irreplaceable geological resources,

Your Petitioners humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to initiate international action against the use of nuclear power and for a crash programme of research and development into safe and replacable sources of energy. by Mr Hurford, Mr Innes, Mr Mathews, and Mr Oldmeadow.

Petitions received.

Uranium

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction.

And whereaspresently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissible Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us as an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports or uranium except for bio-medical uses,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. Further raining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned,
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Jenkins, Mr Lamb and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Medibank

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 2757

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2757

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Government have the bona fides and credentials investigated of a person to whom the Government gave a letter of identification in relation to an overseas loan?

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

– There was no Government investigation of the gentleman whose name has been mentioned in the newspapers. There has been a very great deal of speculation about this. Let me nail it immediately. Not a cent has been paid to the gentleman. Not a cent has to be paid to the gentleman. Not a cent will be paid to the gentleman.

page 2757

QUESTION

MEDIBANK CARDS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to a claim that a Medibank card issued for 2 adopted children in Queensland showed the name of the children’s natural mother? Does this indicate a breach of confidence or a breakdown in the system? If so, what can be done to rectify this situation?

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

-The reports which appeared in the newspapers emanated from a National Country Party State member in Queensland, Mr Hartwig. It is not true to claim that the name of the natural mother of the children appeared on the Medibank cards. I have had the matter checked and it transpires that, in relation to the first of the 2 children concerned, a claim was made for child endowment in April 1961. With regard to the second child, a claim was made in June 1962. On both claims the woman described herself as the foster mother of the children. On the second claim, which was made some 14 months after the first claim, the woman concerned showed again the first child’s given names exactly as they appeared on the original application. At no time were the adopted given names of the children notified to the Department of Social Security for child endowment purposes. That means that for more than a decade the people concerned in this matter who complained to Mr Hartwig have been receiving child endowment for the children concerned without in any way being distressed to the point of contacting the Department and advising that there had been a change of name.

I regret any instance of distress caused to the family but, on the other hand, if the family had advised the child endowment section of the Department of Social Security of the change of name, prompt action could have been taken to change the records. I also remind honourable members that there was a 14 months’ lapse of time between the first and the second claims for child endowment and that on the occasion of the second claim the woman concerned still showed herself as a foster mother and still gave the original or given name of the child as it was before adoption when it was changed.

The child endowment records and the electoral roll records are being used for the distribution of Medibank cards. We can do no better. We will take every reasonable step to try to avoid any distress, inconvenience or irritation to the public, but as we point out in our advertising, there will be instances where some irritation or even some distress could be caused. For instance, a card could arrive at the home of a person who is still registered with the most up to date electoral register for his area and who has since died. We sincerely regret this, but we ask for some mature restraint in this matter and an understanding of the difficulties involved in this very large logistical exercise.

Finally, I think in all of this the National Country Party member for the area concerned, Mr Hartwig, showed a want of scruple in the way in which he exaggerated and distorted the report. It created considerable distress in the community. I sincerely trust that the newspapers which featured this story so prominently and disturbingly for the public- only the ‘Sunday Mail’ saw fit to contact either me or my Press Secretary, and even it did not bother to print much of what was conveyed in detail to it- will now equally prominently feature the real facts of this case.

page 2757

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Minister will recall telling the House last week that he had given an intermediary what he described as a letter of identification to facilitate the borrowing of $2,000m from overseas sources. I ask the honourable gentleman: Was the intermediary given the equivalent of a promissory note or one which would enable the bearer to be the recipient of payment for certain services? Is it a fact that the intermediary in question has a criminal record and that advice to this effect was given to the Government by Scotland Yard?

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

-The question is absurd. The answer is no. The antecedents of the man concerned were checked thoroughly.

Mr Kelly:
Mr CONNOR:

-Thoroughly. The firm for which he works is an old and respected one.

Every possible investigation was made. We will not table the letter.

page 2758

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Hurford having addressed a question to the Prime Minister.)

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is out of order. If there are no further questions I will call on the next business.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is it out of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that if the honourable gentleman listened to the rulings of the Chair he would not have to ask questions about the rulings after they have been made.

page 2758

QUESTION

ADVERTISING CODE

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I address a question to the Minister for Science. Why should not the Government’s advertising be subject to an advertising code? Will the Minister draw up such a code in co-operation with the Attorney-General, or is he prepared to make such advertising subject to the Trade Practices Act as this legislation covers all other advertisers?

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

-As the honourable gentleman will be aware, there are difficulties in the Crown versus the Crown in terms of court cases. But I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Government operates on the basis of the same sorts of ethics as we hope to be able to expect from the private sector.

page 2758

QUESTION

DARWIN CITIZENS COUNCIL

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I address my question to the Minister for the Northern Territory, and it refers to his recent announcement of appointments to the Darwin Citizens Council. Did he receive recommendations for appointment to that Council from the Darwin Reconstruction Commission in accordance with the Act? Were variations made to the actual recommended appointments from the Darwin Reconstruction Commission? If so, how many of the recommendations made by the DRC were rejected and how many substitutions were made? Who were the substitutions and what political or union offices do they hold and what were the reasons for their appointment? If the Minister made substitutions, was it on his own initiative from personal knowledge or on directions from Cabinet or advice from the Department of the Northern Territory? How many representatives are now on the Darwin Citizens Council for the northern suburbs, or Nightcliff area, and was the DCC given -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that if he is going to ask multiple questions he will be required to put them on notice.

Mr CALDER:

– I am just concluding, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I hope so.

Mr CALDER:

– Was the DCC given any opportunity to make recommendations to the Minister for the appointment of people from its numbers for representation on the DRC? For your information and that of the House -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Minister for the Northern Territory.

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

-The honourable member for the Northern Territory discussed this matter briefly with me last Thursday evening. All decisions made were in accordance with the Act. I can assure the honourable gentleman that there has been no contravention in any way with respect to that Act. I shall look at all the questions he has asked- I think there were about eight- and will write him a letter explaining the procedures taken.

page 2758

QUESTION

ANZUS PACT

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. The honourable gentleman would be aware that the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr Phillip Habib, stated that the ANZUS Pact would be honoured by the USA. Would the Prime Minister confirm the Australian Government’s attitude to this Pact?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-This is certainly my understanding, and it has been reinforced by my conversations in the United States 3 weeks ago with the President, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State and, of course, Mr Habib himself and then last week with Mr Habib and his officials in Canberra. Not only do I gain this firm impression from discussions with the Administration, but also from discussions with the Congress. Over the many years in which I have had discussions with the Congress as well as the Administration concerning ANZUS I have never had any reason to doubt that it was supported by both those arms of the United States. On this last occasion the impression again was confirmed by discussions with the leaders of Congress, of both Houses and on both sides, and by discussions with the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.

page 2759

QUESTION

WOOL MARKET: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Treasurer: Will he clarify the situation regarding Government support for the wool market? Will he state whether the Government provides finance for the industry in the form of grants or in the form of repayable interest bearing loans or whether the Government merely guarantees repayment of loans negotiated with the banks by the Australian Wool Corporation? Would a reduced floor price for wool mean a direct reduction in government spending or a lower potential commitment?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– If the money is provided through the banking system, according to the conditions which I have seen, the Government is expected at the end of 12 months to pick up the liability for the full debt, including any outstanding interest payments, to guarantee it. If the money is provided from the Budget- those matters have not been finally determined and no announcement has been made of the Government’s policy- quite clearly there would be an increase in the money supply, whether there was an undertaking to repay the amount of money or not, and there would be an increase in the financial liabilities of the Government. Accordingly one could fairly say that this in itself represents a form of welfare benefit. What it also proposes for consideration is what other areas should be cut, if one is to follow the recommendations of the spokesmen for the Opposition, to allow this increase in government outlay. The Opposition has consistently asserted that there should be wide ranging cuts in public expenditure and at the same time has given firm pledges to increase expenditure substantially in particular areas, such as defence. If it is now its proposition that there should also be a substantial commitment through the Budget to this sort of financial outlay, which involves a very large amount of money, I repeat the challenge to the Opposition: If that is the sort of welfare program it wants, where is it going to get the money and at whose expense in terms of cuts in programs affecting the rest of the community?

page 2759

QUESTION

WOOL MARKET: FLOOR PRICE

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. When he and his colleagues made the disastrous decision to reduce the wool floor price by 50c a kilogram, had the Cabinet been informed that such a decision would have a calamitous effect on wool marketing for some time to come? Was Cabinet warned that such a decision could lead to buyers refusing to buy until the next wool selling season while producers would seek to sell all wool they possibly could before the end of June while the higher floor price existed? Has he heard that one futures market is closed while another has dropped 5c a kilogram, the maximum amount permissible in one day’s trading? Will he ask the Minister for Agriculture, whom he represents in this House, to review the Cabinet decision in view of the chaos it has caused among producers and users of wool?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

-The honourable member knows full well that this matter has been under serious consideration for some weeks. It is still under consideration. There are established procedures to be followed and when the matter is finalised a statement will be made by the Minister for Agriculture at the appropriate time.

page 2759

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the change in structure of the Western Australian Government will affect relations between it and the Australian Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am very happy to have full, frank and fruitful discussions with any State government, whether it has a National Country Party premier or a Liberal Party premier or whether it is a coalition government. I have to deal with all types. I concede that my task is not made easier by the permutations and combinations that go on from week to week and from month to month among the parties which compose the anti-Labor governments. I regret that communications with the government in Western Australia, and in Queensland too, have been somewhat more difficult in the last couple of weeks because those governments have been pre-occupied with sorting out relations with their partners. I would not go so far as to say that I would endorse the remarks that this week’s leader of the National Country Party in Western Australia makes about the Liberal Premier of Western Australia or the remarks which were made by his immediate predecessor a week ago about the Liberal Premier of Western Australia.

I can only express disappointment that the National Country Party Premier of Queensland was not more effective in reconciling the former coalition partners in Western Australia despite the strong pressure placed upon him by the Leader of the National Country Party in this Parliament and by the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament. I remember that it was not so long ago, at the inauguration of the National Country Party, that the Leader of the Opposition said that there was a coalition which would endure for 20 years. In fact, in Western Australia the coalition did not last for even 20 days, despite the efforts by the National Country Party Premier of Queensland. Whoever is turned up as leader of the Liberal Party or leader of the National Country Party in any of the Australian State Parliaments, whatever their relations are between each other, I shall do my part as Leader of the Austraiian Government in having full, frank and fruitful discussions with them.

page 2760

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: Which country or countries were suggested by his intermediary as the source for the $2,000m loan, and through which financial institutions was the loan to be funded?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– That will be disclosed in due course. Suffice it to say that again I might well refer the Opposition to the text of an answer that was given by Dr Cairns in a Press interview on 8 May when he was acting as Prime Minister. I will make a copy of it available to the honourable gentleman. It fully sets out the whole spectrum of availability of finance in respect of petro-dollars.

page 2760

QUESTION

AUSTRAIIAN DEFENCE FORCES

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Press attributed to Admiral Sir Richard Peek, which reads:

By 1990 the Australian forces would have 6 submarines whose average age would be 21 years, 3 guided-missile destroyers with an average age of 25 years, 2 destroyer escorts and a destroyer tender averaging 22 years, 24 Fin aircraft 20 years old, 2 patrol frigates and 8 long-range patrol aircraft.

Will the Minister say whether or not this is an accurate assessment of the state of the equipment of our defence forces?

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

-The statement by Sir Richard Peek would have been more or less correct had it been prefaced by the qualification ‘in the absence of any defence equipment purchases in the next 15 years’. Such a proposition as he has advanced is absurd. The 5-year rolling program within the Department of Defence allows decisions on equipment purchases to be made each year. The honourable member will recall that last year I announced equipment purchases for tanks for the Army, patrol frigates for the Navy, and long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Air Force. Next year, that is in the financial year 1975-76, further major decisions will be made under the 5-year rolling program and announced at the appropriate time. It is quite incredible that a former Chief of the Naval Staff, who was for a long time acquainted with the method under which equipment is purchase for the Department of Defence and who should have had some knowledge of the 5-year rolling program, should display quite a lamentable lack of knowledge and understanding.

page 2760

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Since the Minister for Minerals and Energy plainly believes he has nothing to hide in respect of the overseas loan, will he now table the letter to the intermediary so that the House, the Parliament and the Australian people can judge that matter for themselves?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-The Leader of the Opposition, as a potential Prime Minister, perhaps, and also in the light of his Ministerial experience, would well know that certain matters are handled on a confidential basis. It would destroy the whole principle of confidentiality if one were to discuss this matter on the basis that the Opposition wants to obtain information for completely scurrilous purposes. That information will not be given.

page 2760

QUESTION

HOSPITALS CONTRIBUTION FUND OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to the behaviour of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales, to which my attention has been drawn, that when subscribers seek to renew their subscriptions for the medical part of the Hospitals Contribution Fund until 1 July, when Medibank comes into force, and for the hospital part for 3 months, because there is discount on that basis, they are unable to do so, because the Hospitals Contribution Fund insists on them paying subscriptions for the same period of time? Will the Minister take urgent steps under any authority he may have as far as the Hospitals Contribution Fund is concerned to force that organisation to accept subscriptions only to 1 July for medical purposes and for longer periods for the hospital part until the New South Wales Government joins the hospital part of this Medibank scheme?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I was not aware of this practice. I am shocked by it. I regard it as quite improper. I believe that people are being extorted through this sort of behaviour. Accordingly I will make inquiries as soon as question time is over to see what can be done in the public interest.

page 2761

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr VINER:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: What happened between question time on Tuesday 20 May when the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition that the $2 billion loan was ‘for matters related to energy’ and 5.30 p.m. that day which caused the Executive Council to revoke the authority for that loan?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– The provision was revoked with my approval.

page 2761

QUESTION

POTATO INDUSTRY

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is the Minister aware of the extreme disadvantage which is caused to potato producers, processors and consumers by rapid changes in the level of imports and by fluctuations in price from year to year? Can he tell the House what progress has been made in the Commonwealth Statistician’s investigations aimed at forecasting the level of imports rather than reporting them after they have arrived in the country? What progress has been made in establishing a potato industry panel to promote consultation between the industry and the Government?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– I understand that the honourable member for Casey has in his electorate at Kingslake some of the finest potatoes grown in Australia. I know that for some time he has had representations from growers in his area who were concerned and who are still concerned at the level of imports of particular types of processed potatoes for flakes and other products. These imports obviously have a direct or indirect effect on the level of prices through supply and demand factors in Australia. All honourable members associated with the potato industry or with a knowledge of it know that it is an industry in which there is a great variability in production levels from season to season. Obviously, when there is a shortage of potatoes and prices are high, there is the incentive to import potato products to take up the slack in the amount of potato products available in Australia, and this again has an effect on prices and causes some concern to potato growers. If potato growers believe they are financially hurt, they can take their case to the Temporary Assistance Authority to have it examined.

I will look at the last 2 questions the honourable member asked regarding the progress being made by the Australian Statistician in respect of forecasting, because I believe that such forecasting is needed. Rather than having to look at statistics that are, say, 3 months old, it would be far better to put forward estimates of imports. Those estimates could help not only with respect to matching supply and demand but also with respect to plantings of potatoes. I will have pleasure in referring that question also to the Minister for Agriculture.

page 2761

QUESTION

PERUVIAN FISH MEAL

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Did the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Peru arrange to trade Australian milk powder for Peruvian fish meal? If so, is the Prime Minister aware that there is a large surplus of oilseeds and various meals in Australia at the present time necessitating an export of at least 25 000 tonnes of soya beans to avoid a total collapse of the oilseed industry? If he did arrange the deal with Peru, will he review the bilateral arrangements in view of the information 1 have supplied?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did have something to do with the deal in dairy products which was concluded immediately after my visit and largely as a result of it. I do not remember a deal being concluded concerning fish meal. Nevertheless fish meal is one of the products of Peru as that country catches and processes probably more fish than any other country. In view of Australia’s favourable trade balance with Peru, clearly we should consider any deals for this Peruvian product, which would be a valuable foodstuff in Australia. Certainly I will take into account what the honourable gentleman said. There is now for the first time, as a result of my visit, machinery for regular consultation between the 2 countries.

page 2761

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Morris having addressed a question to the Prime Minister) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is not appropriate. It asks for an opinion relating to a matter which is not within the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, with respect, it does come within my jurisdiction. The terms of reference -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will have to insist that it is not within the Prime Minister’s jurisdiction. It is within the jurisdiction of the Speaker. The terms of reference of a royal commission, as raised by the honourable member for Shortland, would not come within the prerogative of the

Government. They would be within the prerogative of the Parliament only. Therefore this question does not fall with the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. I must rule the question out of order.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, will you hear me on this? I do not particularly -

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the Prime Minister takes a point of order I will hear him on that.

Mr Whitlam:

– I make the point of order that a royal commission is commissioned by the Crown on the advice of the Government, not of the Parliament, and what the Crown commissions judges to inquire into is decided by the Executive Council. Who attends the Executive Council and forms a majority of it under the chairmanship of the Governor-General is decided by me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would, however, not uphold the point of order of the Prime Minister. The Parliament determines who will inquire into the affairs of Parliament.

page 2762

QUESTION

WOOL PRICE

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I direct to the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked of the Minister for Northern Development by the honourable member for Farrer. I ask whether the Cabinet has made a recommendation to Caucus dealing with the 1975-76 wool reserve price. If so, when will an announcement be made? I also ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a number of telegrams in opposition to the reported proposal to lower the wool floor price from, firstly, the Victorian Farmers Union; secondly, the Trades and Labour Council -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable gentleman ask a question and not make a speech.

Mr KING:

– I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received telegrams from the Victorian Farmers Union, from the Trades and Labour Council in Portland and also -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that should the honourable gentleman continue in that vein he will not be able to complete his question.

Mr KING:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a telegram from the Wannon electorate council of the Australian Labor Party opposing the proposal to lower the wool floor price.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The only communication I have seen recently from the Victorian Farmers Union was an invitation to open its annual conference on Tuesday, 1 July. I was happy to accept.

page 2762

QUESTION

WOOL PRICE

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Acting Treasurer. Is he in a position to say how large the Australian Wool Corporation stockpile has become with a floor price of 250c per kilogram? Would further stockpiling and storage have to be financed by printing money? Does he know of any industry which has ever been made efficient by insulating it from market forces?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-The wool stockpile is of the order of 1.6 million bales at the present time and the cost incurred in acquiring that wool was of the order of, as I recollect it, $360m. There would be further additions to the stockpile, I would expect, and the proposition that has been put to the Government would result in considerable additional outlay over and above that $360m. To the extent that the additional outlay represents a new commitment, which it would do, and represents a cost above what can be covered by income raised by the Government- and that would be the case- clearly the Government would be printing money and accordingly would be adding to its deficit. Might I say that this would be contrary to the very strict discipline which the Government should apply in the coming months in controlling the level of the deficit.

Finally, I personally am committed, inasmuch as it is possible to achieve it, to the free working of market forces in our economy. I believe that certain rigidities are built into the economy and that when these forces are interfered with certain unfortunate consequences flow, whether it is in the primary, secondary or tertiary sectors of the economy.

page 2762

QUESTION

URANIUM EXPORTS

Mr ELLICOTT:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to recent demonstrations inside and outside Parliament House by young people objecting to the export of uranium. I also refer the Prime Minister to the strong stand which his Government has taken against the French over atmospheric nuclear tests and in relation to nuclear non-proliferation. Will the Prime Minister explain, for the benefit of the House and of the young people concerned, why it is that there are no double standards involved in his Government’s taking this strong stand whilst permitting the export of uranium to countries in circumstances in which the minerals could be used for the production of nuclear weapons.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government has been scrupulous to ensure that no negotiations for the export of uranium from Australia will take place with any country which has not subscribed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or which has not undertaken to observe the safeguards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Australian Government took steps to deter the French Government from carrying out nuclear tests in the atmosphere. The steps which the Australian Government took, and which were supported by the Governments of New Zealand and Fiji, were successful.

page 2763

QUESTION

WOOL PRICE

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Acting Treasurer. Is he aware of reports that the wool market is stengthening? What would be the situation in the event that the Australian Wool Corporation sold off its stocks? Where would those funds be returned?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– Quite frankly, the wool market would have to strengthen considerably over anything that can be anticipated now for a long time into the future. As a result of discussions I have had with representatives of the industry, that view is confirmed. I did not want to canvass this issue and I have been somewhat circumspect to this point but the honourable member has invited me to expand a little on some of the things I have said before. I have noted in ‘Queensland Country Life’ that it is the proposal of the wool industry that there should be a basic stock used for the regulation of the price, the market and the industry of about 2 million bales- a considerably higher level of stocks than currently exists- and that the cost of this would exceed $400m. The 5 per cent levy which growers are contributing will scarcely provide enough, from what I can assess of the situation, to service the debt which is incurred on this loan from year to year, let alone to acquit it. It would seem to me that there would have to be a substantial improvement in the market beyond the expectations of anyone to whom I have spoken, including the most optimistic in the industry, for that stock to be cleared. If the stock is cleared, costs can be covered provided the actual cost of the acquisition of the wool, the cost of storage and the cost of servicing the debt are met. Seeing that the honourable member invited me to reply, I must say that I doubt whether those things could be achieved.

page 2763

QUESTION

WOOL PRICE

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Acting Treasurer. Will he confirm that all trading losses borne by the Australian Wool Corporation are funded by woolgrowers from the 5 per cent levy on wool sales? Can he give the House an estimate of the loss which would be incurred on the 1.6 million bales presently in the stockpile and which would be funded by the woolgrowers? Would that loss amount to about $75m?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I could not answer that question but I could certainly find out the answer for the honourable gentleman. It seems to me that the loss will be a notional loss to the point when the stock is disposed of and a realisation is made upon it. As I understand the situation, if the stock stays there it is nothing more than notional in the sense in which the honourable gentleman was talking. If the stock can be disposed of at, at least, a break even price, that loss will not occur.

page 2763

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr YOUNG:

-I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the predictions made some weeks ago that a bloodbath would follow any change of government in South Vietnam, has the Australian Government received any evidence that a bloodbath took place following the taking over of South Vietnam by the Provisional Revolutionary Government? Is he aware of the initiatives that have been taken by Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand to build diplomatic relations with the new Governments of Cambodia and South Vietnam?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government has no direct information concerning the situation in South Vietnam because we have no representatives in the country. Nevertheless, in the last day or so a great number of correspondents who have been in South Vietnam since the change of government have left the country and, without exception, have reported that there has been no blood-bath, no holocaust, whatever. In fact it will be noticed that in today’s newspapers there is a photograph of the last Prime Minister of South Vietnam walking recently unattended through the streets of Saigon. It is clear from the reports of all these correspondents- many of them very well known and highly regarded correspondentsthat the changeover has been peaceful and effective.

The Australian Government is taking steps to restore diplomatic representation in Saigon. A formal note has been delivered to the Revolutionary Government advising it of the Australian Government’s desire to establish diplomatic relations and to reopen the embassy in Saigon as soon as practicable. We have been advised that the Revolutionary Government observes the Vienna Convention relating to the rights and immunities of foreign diplomatic representatives and that embassy properties would be protected. There appears to be no problem in reopening the embassy, but a number of technical and administrative questions remain to be clarified. We shall reopen the embassy as soon as it is practicable to do so. We cannot say when this will be. Obviously we hope to establish the embassy as soon as possible so that we can observe for ourselves the situation in Saigon and in all other parts of the country with which Australian representatives have been familiar.

I cannot give the honourable gentleman any precise information concerning the representation by other countries which he mentioned, but a week ago I was informed that, in addition to the 42 governments which previously had recognised the Provisional Revolutionary Government, that Government, on becoming the Government following the demise of the previous Government, was recognised by Laos, India, Malaysia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Thailand, Britain, New Zealand and Canada as well as Australia.

page 2764

EFFECTS OF INFLATION ON TAXATION

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present the report of the committee of inquiry appointed to inquire into the effects of inflation on taxation paid by persons and business enterprises, dated this month. Copies of submissions made to the committee are available in the Parliamentary Library. The related report of the Taxation Review Committee chaired by Mr Justice K. W. Asprey will be tabled later this week.

page 2764

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1975-76.

Supply Bill (No. 2) 1975-76.

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1975.

page 2764

WOOL MARKET: FLOOR PRICE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The uncertainty and instability generated in the wool market through the failure of the Government to come to a firm and proper decision on the floor price for the 1975-76 wool selling season.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided: (MrSpeaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

Ayes………. 61

Noes………. 56

Majority……. 5

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call Government Business.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I am seeking the call.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I called on Government Business.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I am calling for your call.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have called on Government Business. The honourable member will resume his seat and not argue. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling.

Mr Daly:

– I move:’That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I would suggest that both gentlemen at the table resume their seats and let us get on with the business. There is no ruling from which the honourable gentleman can move dissent. He cannot move dissent unless he has the call of the Chair. I have called on Government Business. No member of the House has risen. If the honourable gentleman wishes to rise I will give him the call.

page 2765

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I move:

That so much of Standing Orders -

Mr Daly:

– I move: ‘That the honourable member be not further heard ‘.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is out of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I move:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent this House debating immediately a matter of public importance, namely, the uncertainty and instability generated in the wool market through the failure of the

Government to come to a firm and proper decision on the floor price for the 1 975-76 wool selling season.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 56

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Malcolm Fraser- Yes

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– I second the motion that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended -

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Leader of the Opposition be hot further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no option but to put the question.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Even before the motion has been seconded, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion is not that the motion be put, but that the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard, and that is in order.

Question put:

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 56

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party of Australia · Richmond

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the motion before the Chair.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 56

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Speaker, in the few moments at my disposal I wish to say a few words to the motion. Honourable members opposite have decided to move this motion knowing full well that the matter to which it refers will be brought before the House immediately the Government considers it appropriate to do so. Immediately after the decisions are announced and made public is the time to debate these matters in the Parliament. Today the Opposition, on a political stunt, has gone through the process of delaying the business of this Parliament. Today honourable members opposite were prepared to delay the business of the Parliament to debate a matter which they know will be discussed in this Parliament in the very near future.

Opposition members- When?

Mr DALY:

– Immediately the Government announces its decision is the time for honourable members opposite to debate these matters. They will be given adequate time to do so. Only last week honourable members aired their views on this matter when speaking to a motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair). Their views have been fairly well aired in advance. I cannot get over the excitement of honourable members opposite. I thought that they would want to talk about inflation and about all the sins of omission and commission of the Government.

Mr Sinclair:

– I take a point of order. This motion relates directly to the suspension of Standing Orders to talk about the uncertainty and instability generated in the wool market through the failure of the Government to come to a firm and proper decision on the floor price -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will speak to his point of order.

Mr Sinclair:

– The point of order is that the honourable gentleman’s speech is not relevant to the motion about the uncertainty and instability generated in the market through the failure of the Government to set a firm and proper price.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Sinclair:

– I would suggest that the Minister’s remarks are not relevant.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion has nothing to do with that. The motion is for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Sinclair:

– To enable that motion to be debated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is to enable that motion to be moved. The motion of the honourable member for New England is not before the House at the moment. If the honourable member attempts to speak to that motion I will rule him out of order. He can speak only to the question that Standing Orders should or should not be suspended for that purpose. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr DALY:

– I was endeavouring to speak to the reason that Standing Orders should not be suspended at this stage. There is important business before this Parliament which must be concluded urgently. The question of wool will be brought before the Parliament at the appropriate time decided upon by the Government in accordance with decisions made by the Government. The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia, who gets one bright idea a month, got it today. He thought he would embarrass the Government. He endeavoured to embarrass the Government by moving this motion. Had he desired -

Mr King:

– The Government must be embarrassed.

Mr Lusher:

– Why will not the Government debate it?

Mr DALY:

– I can wait. I have the rest of the week.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest honourable gentlemen might remain silent, and that the Leader of the House relate his remarks to the motion and not answer interjections.

Mr DALY:

– I was explaining to the honourable members opposite the reason we are opposed to this motion. We believe it is a timewasting device by honourable members opposite in an endeavour to gain political capital out of a matter that will come before this House later.

Mr Sinclair:

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is that the Leader of the House be not further heard. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the noes have it.

Mr Daly:

– The noes have it.

Mr Sinclair:

– The ayes have it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is, that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I called for a division. The ayes have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for New England called for a division but the Leader of the House said the noes have it. Only one honourable member called for a division. The time for this debate has now expired. Therefore, the honourable gentleman will not be heard.

Mr Nixon:

– He had one minute to go, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would suggest to the honourable gentleman that I know when the debate has expired.

Question put:

That the Standing Orders be suspended (Mr Sinclair’s motion).

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 55

NOES: 61

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2769

RAILWAYS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, together with the Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975 which I shall present shortly, represents the first major step towards the creation of a truly national railway system. The present Australian Government is not claiming originality for this program. Quite clearly, the need for a unified railway was in the minds of Australia’s founding fathers in 1897 when they incorporated into the Australian Constitution Section 51 (xxxiii), which gave to the Australian Parliament power with respect to:

The acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State ‘.

By the turn of the century, the statesmen of the then colonial governments were only too aware of the problems that had come about because of the separate development of the railway systems; for by 1897 railways in eastern Australia had reached colonial borders and the effects of probably the greatest tragedy in Australia’s transport history were being felt- the lack of a uniform rail gauge.

The transfer of the State railways to the Australian Government has been portrayed by the Opposition as a centralist and socialist measure. I doubt if men of the political character of Barton, Griffith, Kingston and Deakin could be described as socialist or centralist as they gave to Australia a federal Constitution. Yet they were practical men who saw the need for the coordinated development of Australia’s transport system and incorporated in the Constitution, provisions which would enable the establishment of the Interstate Commission and a national railway system. Regrettably Australia has had to wait for a Government with a truly national approach to transport problems before the vision of the framers of the Constitution could commence to be realised.

The division of responsibility for Australia’s railways among the 6 States and the Australian Government has led to dis-economies such as duplication of facilities and administration; inefficient operating procedures; poor utilisation of available resources; limited standardisation of equipment; and the lack of a uniform approach to railway policy. In recent decades, the increasing need for new capital investment in railways and the inability or reluctance of State Governments to meet this need has magnified the difficulties resulting from this diversity of interests and approaches. The fruits of the haphazard development of our railways are now all too apparent. Each system has its own design staff, with highly skilled personnel carrying out unnecessarily duplicated functions; on standard gauge lines alone, there are more than 9 different designs of car-carrying wagons. (Quorum formed)

If one extends this to the other classes of wagons, one begins to understand why rolling stock manufacturers have headaches in trying to rationalise their construction programs; changing train crews and remarshalling trains at State borders wastes both time and resources; signalling systems differ from State to State; even simple but vital safety devices, such as handbrakes are located in different places on freight wagons in different systems, and shunter’s steps on wagons from different systems vary in height, design and situation on the vehicle. To the layman looking at the 2 consists of the Southern Aurora, which are jointly owned by New South Wales and Victoria, they seem to be identical trains. Little does he know that each consist has differently designed bogies; one design acceptable to New South Wales and the other acceptable to Victoria. There is even a case where 2 adjoining State railway systems of the same gauge have the automatic staff exchangers on their engines on different sides, thus effectively precluding the through operation of these engines on express passenger and freight trains on either side of their common border. (Quorum formed)

It is no wonder then that the railways were basically incapable of coping with increased capital costs and the spirited- and mainly united and co-ordinated- competition provided by the road hauliers and freight forwarders. As a result freight has been diverted to inadequate highways with consequent economic and social costs to the community as a whole, in the form of higher road maintenance costs and the human misery and personal financial burden road accidents bring. But the road hauliers could not be blamed for seizing a commercial opportunity. The freight had to be moved, and the railways could not do the job, because they did not have the wagon capacity. This Government was quick to react to this problem and has introduced a scheme under which Commonwealth Railways will purchase over 1300 wagons for intersystem use, which will be available for lease to the States. Additional purchases of wagons will be decided in the light of future needs.

The Government is committed to the upgrading of Australia’s railways. It has commenced the building of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railwaya line only 70 kilometres shorter than the present line between Melbourne and Sydney. It has passed the necessary legislation to build a standard gauge railway between Adelaide and Crystal Brook which, when completed, will mean that all mainland capital cities will have a standard gauge connection. In addition, through the urban transport program the Government has contributed substantially to the modernisation of State urban railways in such fields as track duplication, improved signalling, and passenger rolling stock.

State railways are becoming an increasingly heavy burden to State Treasuries. In fact, in 1 973-74 State railway systems collectively lost an estimated $306m and, in general, State railway deficits are increasing faster than the increase in State revenue. It is not surprising, therefore, that Sir Henry Bolte and Sir Robert Askin offered their States’ railways to the then Australian Prime Minister, Mr Gorton. It was left to the present Government to recognise the need for radical changes in Australia’s transport policy -in particular a national approach to the role of the railways- and to do something about it. Accordingly -

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Ring the bells.

Mr Daly:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, there is only one Liberal and one Country Party member in the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! A quorum is properly being called.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take a point of order. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) was within the precincts of the chamber and has since left. He is directing other members not to come in from his side of the House. I submit that he is in contravention of the Standing Orders and, in addition, that he is acting in an unparliamentary manner in trying to see that the House closes down its business for the day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! A quorum is present. If the honourable member for Griffith was in fact present I point out to him that it is out of order for him to leave the chamber on the ringing of the bells.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Who?

Mr Keating:

– You.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I did not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Accordingly, the Prime Minister in his 1972 election policy speech included the following promise:

We will accept the offers of the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers for a transfer of their State railways systems and accept such an offer from any other State. In no other federal system in the world are railways conducted by State Governments or within State compartments.

This offer was confirmed in writing to all State Premiers in February 1973 and was reiterated at the Premiers Conference in June 1974. Regrettably the responses of the non-Labor States have not matched the spirit of the offer. Victoria and Queensland have steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that there would be some benefit in discussing the proposal; while the Court and Lewis Governments have decided, in their wisdom, to break off the discussions commenced under their predecessors. However, I am hopeful that the experience of South Australia and Tasmania after transfer will cause the other States to rethink their position.

One may ask why the Government does not just provide the States with sufficient funds to bring their railways up to an acceptable standard. I must admit this solution has an elementary plausibility, in that it would appease the States. But it would be a denial of our responsibility to the railways and the people of Australiathat awesome responsibility that accompanies the spending of public money. We cannot, and will not, divorce the responsibility for raising funds from the spending of them, because this has in the past given rise to exaggerated claims by the States on the one hand, and an escapist attitude on the part of the Federal Government on the other. I am convinced that merely pouring additional funds into an outmoded and an inefficient system would have the effect of perpetuating, perhaps even increasing, its problems and that a new and co-ordinated approach is required for the nation as a whole to benefit. (Quorum formed) Already major transport projects undertaken by the Australian Government are subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis by the Bureau of Transport Economics, to determine whether they are economically justified and to give them some order of priority. It is intended to apply the same strict standards to major railway investments.

Railways not only represent a physical investment but they also represent a human investment. Many men and women devote their working lives to the railways and they have collectively formed some of the finest traditions in any government service. Only recently in a flood railwaymen repaired a major washaway on the Trans-Australian Railway, and in a third of the time it was expected to take; at the Finke Crossing on the Central Australia line men have often worked up to their waists in water and at personal risk to themselves to get trains through. There are many other similar examples I could cite. These traditions should be maintained as they are important to the morale and the overall efficiency of the railways. In an organisation as large as the Australian National Railways will become- with over an estimated 14 000 employees- individuals can feel lost. Also during a time of change, as will prevail during the amalgamation of the South Australian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth railways there is often a feeling of insecurity. For this reason, the ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer’ of the railways, which were tabled in Parliament, contained specific provisions to guarantee the jobs of present employees and that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those that presently applied. Also the Bill before the House makes provision to ensure that employees’ superannuation, long service leave, sick leave and other entitlements are maintained.

I am also arranging for detailed discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and officers of railway unions to establish methods of consultation and liaison which ensure all railwaymen and women are fully informed on the progress of the transfer. Already trade union officials have been involved in the official discussions which led to the agreement to transfer the SAR and TGR. These trade union officials made a significant contribution to the transfer discussions through their detailed knowledge of industrial matters. (Quorum formed) The South Australian Railways at present operate extensive urban rail services in the Adelaide metropolitan area. These railways have in the past been integrated into the total operations of the South Australian Railways and in many cases metropolitan lines provide the means for country and freight trains to enter the urban area. The staff that man these lines are SAR employees.

The South Australian Government has decided to retain the SAR metropolitan railways, because it sees a need to co-ordinate all urban passenger transport under one authority. The metropolitan lines South Australia will retain are described in Schedule One to the Agreement. Obviously, as a result of the South Australian decision arrangements will have to be made for ANR trains to work in and out of the metropolitan area, and specific arrangements are made in the Agreement to cover such operational areas as running and servicing. However, the staff to man the metropolitan system will be ANR employees -

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is getting awfully monotonous. (A quorum being counted)-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Defence not to take his place for a moment. We are in the process of counting for a quorum. (A quorum having been counted)-

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that there are 3 members in the House who moved in after I called for a quorum.

Mr Morrison:

– We were in the House.

Mr Armitage:

– We were over there.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– That is right.

Mr Morrison:

– Yes, right in the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There are 43 members present, making a quorum. In accordance with the procedures of the House, I name the honourable member for Gippsland.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for Gippsland be suspended from the service of the House.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 48

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Gippsland is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. (The honourable member thereupon withdrew from the chamber.)

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the Minister be granted an extension of time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 54

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

I now turn to the more important provisions of the Bill. To assist honourable members in considering the Bill, I am having circulated explanatory notes which briefly discuss the purpose of each of its clauses and the paragraphs of the Agreement which accompany it. The Bill provides the legislation necessary for the Agreement signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Premier of South Australia to come into operation, on the basis of the ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian Railway system to the Australian Government’, which papers were tabled in Parliament on 9 April 1975. The Agreement itself is contained in the Schedule to the Bill.

At present the South Austraiian Railways staff is over 8300 strong. Obviously it will take time to transfer these employees to Australian Government employment. Consequently it is planned to have an interim period of about one year commencing on 1 July 1975 when all assets- land, property, rights and interests- and liabilities of the non-metropolitan railways will be vested in the Australian National Railways Commission, as provided for in clause 5. During this interim period the State authorities- that is, the State Transport Authority and the SAR Commissionerwill operate the railways subject to the direction of the Australian National Railways, and this arrangement is provided for in clause 6 of the Agreement.

It was recognised at a very early stage of negotiations on the transfer that because of the important role the railways play in the State ‘s economy there would need to be provision in any agreement for the State to have some influence over the future operations of the railways. This need is met directly by clause 9, which requires the agreement of the State Minister to any proposed closure of lines or reduction in services. A similar arrangement has been made in relation to workshops where the approval of the State Minister for Transport is required to any reduction in the general level of staff by reason of redundancy. Indirectly, the State is provided with a means of having its voice heard in operations of the ANR, as South Australia has the right to nominate a part-time Commissioner to the ANR Commission for two 5-year terms. The appointment will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport and is provided for in clause 10 of the Agreement.

Obviously, even with the best will in the world, differences of opinion may arise relating to the operation of the railways. Clause 23 of the Agreement provides for arbitration in relation to specific areas of railway operations. (Quorum formed) This provision recognises the unique social role railways play in not only the lives of people but also those of communities, for in his deliberations the arbitrator can take into account the social and community as well as the economic factors affecting a particular disagreement. States have always looked upon their railways as a means of influencing State development, the main tool used being concessional railway rates. It would be irresponsible on the part of both the Australian and South Australian Governments if we were to reach an agreement which failed to take into account the position of railway users who had made commercial investments and business decisions based on existing freight rates. To meet this situation clause 8(1) provides that where, in general, fares, freight rates and other charges at the commencement date have established a relative advantage to the users, that advantage shall not be diminished’.

Honourable members will remember that in the debate on the Australian National Railways Bill I accepted an amendment proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) relating to the ancillary services that the Commission can engage in. The definition of ‘services’ contained in clause 1 of the Agreement has been drawn with the honourable member’s amendment in mind for it defines ‘services’ as services including passenger and freight road services that are incidental or supplementary to, or are operated in association with the nonmetropolitan railways’. I draw this to the attention of honourable members particularly when they come to consider clause 13 of the Agreement which covers services associated with nonmetropolitan railways.

The financial aspects of the Agreement are dealt with in Part IV of the Agreement, in clauses 18, 19, 20 and 21. Clause 18 provides for a payment to South Australia of $10m prior to the commencement date of the Agreement. Clause 19 provides for the taking over by the Australian Government of an agreed portion of the State’s debt. Clause 20 arises out of the interim period when the State authorities will operate the nonmetropolitan railways on behalf of the Australian Government. In effect the clause provides that any losses on operations will be funded by the Australian Government and similarly any profits will be paid to the Australian Government. Clause 21 sets out the principles to be observed in respect of the transfer of investments from the State to the Australian Superannuation Fund. Finally I would like to stress the importance of co-operation to the success of the transfer program on the part of governments, unions and railway management. Problems will arise, and they are to be expected in a program as large as this, but they can be resolved if a spirit of understanding prevails. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 2774

RAILWAYS (TASMANIA) BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I present the Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975 which is to approve the Agreement for the transfer of the Tasmanian Government Railways to the Australian Government. The Agreement is based on the ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer of the Tasmanian Government Railway System to the Australian Government’ which were tabled in the Australian Parliament on 23 April 1975 and in the Tasmanian Parliament on 1 May 1975. 1 have already outlined in my speech on the Railways (South Australia) Bill the reasons behind the Government’s rail transfer program, and the Agreement contained in the present Bill is basically along similar lines to the South Aus.tralian Agreement. I am having circulated to honourable members explanatory notes to assist them in consideration of this Bill.

The Agreement which is embodied in the Schedule to the Bill provides for an interim period commencing on 1 July when the Aus.tralian Government accepts financial responsi.bility for the Tasmanian Railways and has the assets of the railways vested in it. The interim period will terminate with the transfer of the raUway staff to the Australian National Railways Commission. During this period the Tasmanian Transport Commission will administer the raUway on behalf of the Australian National Railways, but subject to the direction and control of the ANR. The Agreement also provides for the Australian National Railways to operate ancillary services in Tasmania and extend its railways where necessary. Provision is also made for the continuation of concessions presently available on the railways if the State so requests, provided the State meets the same proportion of their cost as it provided before the transfer. In the case of a dispute arising between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments on payments for concessions and cessation of services on the railway, provision has been made for settlement by arbitration.

However, there are a number of provisions in the Bill which are directly related to Tasmania’s circumstances. Because of the importance of sea trade to Tasmania and the Government’s declared intention to see greater co-ordination between the ANR and the Australian National Line, provision has been made for Tasmanian nominees to join both the Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian National Railways Commission. Both these appointments will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport and are provided for in clause 9 of the Agreement. At present the Tasmanian Transport Commission operates the Precision Tool Annexe at Launceston. Although its buildings are situated on railway land the Annexe is not part of the railway’s operations. Consequently, it has been decided that the Annexe will remain with the Tasmanian Government. Clause 19 provides for this and for the eventual removal of the Annexe from railway land, possibly within 10 years.

Obviously the financial aspects of the transfer Agreement with Tasmania differ from those agreed to with South Australia as the Tasmanian railways are much smaller. The number of railway employees to be transferred to ANR employment are correspondingly fewer. South Australia as distinct from Tasmania is a ‘claimant State’ and the debt structures of the 2 railways differ considerably. The financial aspects of the Tasmanian Agreement are dealt with in clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17. Clause 14 provides for a payment to Tasmania of $5m in consideration for land, minerals and other assets when both the Australian and Tasmanian parliaments ratify the necessary legislation to approve the Agreement. (Quorum formed) Clause 15 provides for the taking over by the Australian Government of a specified portion of the railways debt. Clause 16 refers to the interim period, during which any losses on the railways will be borne by the Australian Commission and any profits will be paid to the Australian Commission. Clause 17 is intended to ensure continuity of superannuation to any transferred employees. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 2775

TASMANIA GRANT (ASSOCIATED PULP AND PAPER MILLS LIMITED) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament to pay to Tasmania, in accordance with the provisions of section 96 of the Australian Constitution, a sum not exceeding $650,000. Such payments are to be made in return for Tasmania providing financial assistance to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, subject to that company in turn maintaining employment at agreed levels.

Briefly, the background to this matter is as follows: Last year concern was expressed regarding a possible shortage of printing papers. As a consequence, considerable quantities were imported, whilst at the same time Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd- the only Australian manufacturer of fine papers for printing and writing purposes- was also experiencing a high level of demand. Towards the end of 1974 it became apparent that very high levels of stocks were held by merchants and users of fine paper, and as a result orders for further supplies from the local supplier fell away dramatically. Consequently, APPM Ltd found its inventories of paper rising sharply. An inquiry by the Temporary Assistance Authority found that the company was not at present being threatened by imports, and the Government accepted the recommendation of the Authority that emergency protection against imports should not be applied.

Orders on the company have continued at very low levels throughout 1975, and orders have been at a level considerably below the company’s production. The company found that it was impossible to continue to amass stocks and was faced with the necessity of closing down large sections of its plant, which would have had particularly sudden and serious consequences in employment and social terms in the areas in which these plants are located, both for the families directly concerned and the many others indirectly dependent upon the company and its employees.

Alternative employment opportunities in the areas concerned are very limited, and the particular areas which would be affected are heavily dependent on the company’s operations. The Government considered it desirable that all steps reasonably possible to avoid such a serious situation should be taken. Because of the findings in the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority it was clear that assistance through the tariff was not appropriate.

Because of the very high level of stocks held by the company, it has reduced operations in the coating plant of one mill from a 7-day to a 5-day week, and at other locations is working 3 weeks in every four. This has enabled retrenchments to be kept to a minimum, but still results in production in excess of demand. To permit a reasonable level of operations to continue, it is proposed that Tasmania will reimburse the company for interest actually paid, up to a maximum of $650,000, on a loan necessary to finance the accumulation of additional stocks. Tasmania will then be reimbursed by the Australian Government. These payments will only be made if the Minister for Manufacturing Industry is satisfied as to the reasonable maintenance of employment levels and other conditions, such as the provision of necessary information.

I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 5 of the Bill. Apart from retrenchments resulting directly from the reduction in throughput I have mentioned, the company cannot, in terms of the agreement, undertake further retrenchment of employees before 3 1 December 1975 without the express agreement in writing of the Australian and Tasmanian Governments. Such agreement would only be contemplated in extreme circumstances, such as if stocks continue to rise and reach a level beyond which further stock accumulation would be untenable. The financial assistance proposed by this Bill is exceptional in nature to meet exceptional circumstances. It is not intended to be a generalised form of assistance. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Edwards) adjourned.

page 2776

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1975

Second Reading

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill gives effect to an exchange of notes concluded on 2 1 March 1974 between the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), as Acting Foreign Minister, and Mr Marshall Green, the United States Ambassador, acting on behalf of our respective Governments. The exchange of notes was tabled on 20 November last. It amends the Agreement of 9 May 1963 between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to the establishment of a United States naval communication station in Australia.

The exchange of notes followed discussions which the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) had in Washington in January 1974 with the United States Secretary of Defence, Mr Schlesinger. As they stated at the time, they agreed that the exchange of letters of 7 May 1963 between the United States Ambassador, Mr Battle, and the Australian Minister for External Affairs, Sir Garfield Barwick, relating to this subject was no longer necessary.

The new exchange of notes provides for 3 amendments to the 1963 Agreement. An amendment to article 1 of the Agreement provides that the station at North West Cape shall be operated jointly while amendment to article 2 limits United States Navy exclusive occupation to a national room and provides for a similar Australian national room. The land use arrangement under the 1963 Agreement is amended to reflect the changed conditions of use and occupancy. An amendment of Article 14 of the Agreement provides that the Australian Government will meet only the costs directly associated with the location of the Royal Australian Navy at the station, such as salaries, allowances and accommodation. An Australian Deputy Commander took up duty at North West Cape on 19 July 1974 while a Royal Australian Navy contingent of 47 officers and men will be posted to the station before the end of next month. Fourteen of these will man the Australian communications centre. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 2776

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

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

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments. Clause 4.

Section5 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 -

Leave out paragraph (b).

Clause 6.

Section 1 6 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 2-

Leave out paragraph (a).

Clause 13.

After section 41 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:- 41a. ( 1) A person (other than a person who is, or is entitled to be, enrolled by virtue of section 4 1 ) who-

Penalty: $10.

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

In proposed section 4 1 a ( 1 ) leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), insert the following words and paragraph: and (b) has left, and is living outside, Australia, but has a fixed intention of returning to Australia and of living within a Subdivision,’.

Senate’s amendment No. 4-

In proposed section 41a(1), after paragraph (d), leave out ‘or the spouse of such a person who is living with that person.’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 5-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out’or her’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 6-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out’orshe’.

Senate’s amendment No. 7-

In proposed section 41 a (2), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 8-

In proposed section 41a (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 9-

In proposed section 41a (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 10-

In proposed section 41a (3), after paragraph (b), leave out’orshe’.

Senate’s amendment No. 1 1-

In proposed section 4 1a (4), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 12-

In proposed section 4 1 a (4), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 13-

In proposed section 4 1 a, leave out sub-section (6).

Senate’s amendment No. 14-

In proposed section 41a, leave out sub-section (11).

Clause 17 (Names on Roll may be objected to).

Senate’s amendment No. 15-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 2 1 -Proposed new Part IXa.

Senate’s amendment No. 16-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 23 (Members of certain legislatures not entitled to be nominated).

Senate’s amendment No. 17-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 24.

Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate ‘s amendment No. 18-

Leave out paragraph ( b )

Senate’s amendment No. 19-

Leave out paragraph (c)

Clause 27.

Section 85 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 20-

Leave out paragraph (d).

Proposed new clause 28A.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 2 1 -

After clause 28, insert the following new clause: “28a. After section 88 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 88a. ( 1 ) The Divisional Returning Officer for each Division that exceeds 260 000 square kilometers in area shall keep a register, to be called the Register of General Postal Voters.

Where a person is enrolled as an elector for a Division referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), otherwise than by virtue of section 39a or 41a, and it is normally difficult for him to vote at a polling booth open in the State for which he is enrolled by reason of-

the distance between the address in respect of which he is enrolled and the nearest place in the Division that is normally appointed a polling place; or

the lack of adequate means of transport from that address to that place, he may at any time make an application in writing to the Divisional Returning Officer to be registered on the register for the Division.

An application shall be signed by the applicant in his own hand writing and shall set out the name and address of the applicant and the grounds of the application.

Upon receipt of the application, the Divisional Returning officer shall-

if he decides that the application is properly made and that there is sufficient reason for registering the applicant under this sectionregister the applicant; or

if he decides otherwise- reject the application, and shall notify the applicant in writing accordingly.

Subject to sub-section (6), the Divisional Returning Officer may at any time cancel the registration of an elector under this section, and in that event (except where the elector is deceased) he shall notify the elector in writing.

The Divisional Returning Officer is not empowered to register an elector or ( except where the elector is deceased) cancel the registration of an elector under this section after 6 o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ, and before the close of the poll, for an election.

An elector who is registered under this section is, by force of this section, out subject to Part VI and to the regulations, entitled to vote at an election in accordance with this Part.

As soon as practicable after the hour of nomination for an election the Divisional Returning Officer shall send a postal vote certificate and a postal ballot-paper or postal ballot-papers, as the case requires, to each elector who is registered on the register for the Division, other than an elector who has made an application under section 85. ‘. “.

Clause 29 (Inspection of applications).

Senate’s amendment No. 22-

Leave out the clause.

Proposed new clause 29a.

Senate’s amendment No. 23-

After clause 29, insert the following new clause: 29a. Section 90 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting in sub-section ( 1 ), after the words “each postal vote certificate”, the words “, other than a certificate referred to in sub-section ( 1 a), “; and

by inserting after sub-section ( 1 ) the following subsection: “(1a) The Divisional Returning Officer shall mark each postal vote certificate issued under section 88a in the manner prescribed. ‘ ‘. ‘.

Clause 30.

Section 92 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 24-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 31.

Section 94 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘a Divisional Returning Officer, a Registrar, a Returning Officer or an Assistant Returning Officer or delivery to a presiding officer,’ and substituting the words ‘the appropriate officer’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 25-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 32 (Preliminary scrutiny of postal ballot-papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 26-

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause:

Section 96 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after the word “ballot-papers” (first occurring) the words “and all applications for registration under section 88a”; and

by omitting from paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “application for the certificate” and substituting the words “relevant applications”.’.

Clause 38 (Printing of House of Representatives ballot papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 27-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 39 (The polling).

Senate’s amendment No. 28-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 40.

Senate’s amendment No. 29-

In sub-clause (5), paragraph (b), leave out ‘6 ‘, insert ‘ 8 ‘.

Clause 42.

Section 1 15 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following subsections:

Senate’s amendment No. 30-

At the end of paragraph (a) of proposed sub-section ( 1 ) add the following sub-paragraph:

Have you already voted either here or elsewhere in this election (or in these elections, as the case requires)?’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 3 1 -

Leave out sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of proposed sub-section ( 1 ).

Clause 45 (Marking of votes in Senate election).

Senate’s amendment No. 32-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 46 (Marking of votes in House of Representatives election).

Senate’s amendment No. 33-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 47 (Informal ballot papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 34-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 48 (Scrutiny of votes in Senate elections).

Senate’s amendment No. 35-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 49 (Scrutiny of votes in House of Representatives elections).

Senate’s amendment No. 36-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 50 (Scrutiny prior to receipt of absent voters’ ballot papers, etc).

Senate’s amendment No. 37-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 5 1 (Return of writ for election of Senators).

Senate’s amendment No 38-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 52 (Return of writs for House of Representatives).

Senate’s amendment No. 39-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 57.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 40-

Leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Clause 65.

The Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting Forms A to F (inclusive) and substituting following forms:

page 2780

FORM E

Ballot-Paper

Section 104(1)

page 2780

AUSTRALIA

[here to be printed the name of State]

Election of [here to be printed the number of Senators to be elected] Senators.

Directions

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the square opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1, 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers.

NOTE- The letter ‘A’ or ‘B’ or’C’ &c, appearing before the square immediately to the left of a candidate’s surname indicates that that candidate and each other candidate who has the same letter appearing beofre the square immediately to the left of his surname have been grouped by mutual consent.

The fact that no letter appears before the square immediately to the left of a candidate’s surname indicates that the name of that candidate has not been included in any group.

FORM F Section 104 (2) and 105

Ballot-Paper

page 2780

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA

[here to be printed name of State].

Electoral Division of [here to printed name of Division].

Election of one Member of the House of Representatives.

Directions

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 4 1 -

In proposed Form E, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the squares opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1 , 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers. ‘, insert-

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert 1, 2 and so on, as the case requires] in the squares immediately to the left of the names of the respective candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 42-

In proposed Form F, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

*If you so desire, you may, in addition, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates by using other numbers in numerical order beginning with the number 2.

*To be included only where there are more than two candidates].’, insert-

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert ‘ 1 and 2’ where there are two candidates, ‘ 1 , 2 and 3 ‘ where there are three candidates, ‘1,2,3 and 4 ‘ where there are four candidates, and so on as the case requires] in the squares respectively opposite the names of the candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them.’.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

This is the third time this Bill, the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, has been before this House. The Bill was first passed by this House on 25 November 1974 and was unceremoniously rejected by the Senate on 28 November 1974. It seemed that this Bill was to suffer the same fate as so many other Government Bills, the enactment of which has been frustrated by the Liberal-National Country Party dominated Senate. However, we were offered a new ray of hope in our efforts to reform the Australian electoral system. The Opposition parties, clothed in the security of their new Leader, decided to adopt a more constructive approach. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) explained to the Australian public that the Opposition would accept ‘nearly two- thirds of the 76 clauses in the Bill’. However, when debate on this Bill resumed in the House of Representatives on 10 April of this year the Opposition presented, at the eleventh hour, a list of 47 amendments which if approved would have the effect of deleting virtually every significant reform which the Government proposed to enact. (Quorum formed)

Provisions in the Bill to provide for the introduction of optional preferential voting, the registration of political parties, the printing of Party affiliations on ballot papers, the drawing for positions on the House of Representatives ballot paper, reforms to postal voting procedures, the closing of the poll at 6 p.m. to facilitate speed in counting would have been all deleted by the Opposition’s proposed amendments. Of course many of the trivial provisions were proudly sponsored. When this Government came to power on 2 December 1972 it immediately set about a long overdue reform of the Australian electoral laws- laws that had helped one government to stay in power for the previous 23 years and which had helped to keep the Australian Labor Party out of power for a total of 55 years of the previous 70-odd years since Federation. It was widely known that this situation had come about as a result of manipulation of electoral boundaries drawn so as to over-represent areas where the present Opposition parties received their support, as a result of skilful exploitation of the preferential voting system, and abuses of postal voting procedures, and as a result of the ineffective representation of Territories in this Parliament.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that every attempted reform of the electoral system that this Government has sought to introduce has been frustrated at every turn by the Opposition Parties. They are bent on the continuation of features of the electoral system which are well known to work in their favour. It was even necessary to appeal to the people at a double dissolution to achieve the passage of a Bill to get some semblance of equality in the numerical strength of the electoral divisions. Over the past few weeks, redistribution proposals based on this simple democratic principle have been laid before this House. The Opposition Parties’ attitudes to those proposals are quite predictable. These same proposals have been described in the Sydney Morning Herald’ of 4 March 1975, by Mr Malcolm Mackerras, the Opposition’s own adviser on electoral matters, as ‘a fair redistribution ‘ which was destined to be ‘ torpedoed ‘ in the interests of the Opposition Parties. In an article in the ‘Bulletin’ of 26 April 1975 entitled ‘Sweet reason kills the electoral bill’ that same gentleman described the Opposition’s current attitude to the electoral laws amendment Bill as ‘phoney ‘ and described the Opposition amendments as ‘a massive emasculation of the Bill’.

Let us consider in more detail some of the major provisions of the Bill which the Opposition has deleted in the Senate. Firstly, the most significant reform proposed of the Australian electoral system since 1949 is the Government’s proposal to introduce optional preferential voting for Federal elections. It is well known that the full preferental voting procedure was introduced in 1918 for Federal elections for the specific purpose of frustrating the electoral successes of the Australian Labor Party. It is a system which allows the Tory parties in Australian politics to subdivide into numerous factions, as they have done so many times in the past, without suffering any penalty for their disunity at the polls. Unfortunately, the complexity of the full preferential voting procedure, particularly when it is combined with proportional representation in Senate elections, is too much for many people to comprehend. The result is an inevitably high level of informal voting in Senate elections. At the last Senate elections on 1 8 May 1 974, the informal vote, Australia-wide, averaged 10.77 per cent. The significance of this figure can be appreciated when it is realised that any candidate receiving just over 9 per cent of the vote in any particular State would have been elected to the Senate.

Of course we know that various right wing factions in Australian politics did their utmost to frustrate the clear expression of the people’s voice at those elections. By encouraging a proliferation of the number of candidates they sought to confuse electors and so increase the number of informal votes. The Opposition Parties know full well the superiority of the optional preferential voting procedure over the present system. They themselves introduced that procedure for Advisory Council elections in the Australian Capital Territory and they themselves selected the optional preferential procedure for the people of Papua New Guinea. Why is it that the optional preferential procedure is suitable for the people of the Australian Capital Territory and Papua New Guinea but it is not suitable for the Australian electorate?

Let us consider some of the advantages that would flow from the introduction of optional preferential voting in Australian elections. It would allow a significant extension of the choices available to the voters. This would occur because optional preferential voting is perhaps the only electoral procedure in the world which allows electors to express indifference between candidates. It maintains all of the choices open to electors under the full preferential system but expands this range of choice by not forcing electors to vote for candidates about whom they know nothing, or towards whom they are positively hostile. It would simplify the act of voting, and would reduce substantially the informal vote, particularly in Senate elections. In my own Division of Grayndler, an informal vote of 16.1 per cent was recorded at the Senate elections last year and that figures was even higher in some other divisions. The time is overdue for change -a change to a more democratic electoral system which would not disfranchise such a large number of voters. There were more than threequarters of a million informal votes at the May 1974 Senate elections- 798 126 to be precise. Is that democracy?

The Opposition has claimed that the introduction of optional preferential voting would virtually amount to a reversion to a firstpastthepost system. This is an irresponsible and misleading claim. At the recent election for the ACT Legislative Assembly, for example, only 2.63 per cent of the ballot-papers in the Division of Canberra and 6.19 per cent of the ballot-papers in the Division of Fraser, were excluded from the count as exhausted. At the recent election for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, only 4.50 per cent of the ballot papers were excluded from the count as being exhausted. The Opposition is well aware of these facts, yet it continues to attempt to mislead the Australian people by false claims. The Opposition has also told us that the optional preferential procedure will help the Australian Labor Party stay in power for the next 100 years. The elections for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Legislative Assemblies have amply demonstrated that this procedure does not favour the Australian Labor Party. It is a fair system. That is why honourable members opposite oppose it.

Let us now consider another major provision of the Bill which the Opposition Parties have deleted in the Senate- the registration of political parties for the purposes of identification and the printing of affiliations on ballot papers. This provision was inserted in the Bill essentially for the purpose of clarifying the choices open to electors when they cast their votes. The Opposition’s deletion of this provision is the most blatant example of the totally cynical attitude with which the Liberal and Country Parties approach this important legislation. They know that in general it is the underprivileged sections of the community who are more prone to confusion when asked to fill out a complicated ballot paper. They know that such people have always supported the policies of the Australian Labor Party because it believes in an egalitarian society. That is the cynical reason why the Liberal and Country Parties oppose any attempt to simplify and clarify the act of voting. It would seem that the candidates sponsored by the Liberal and Country Parties are ashamed of their political affiliations and do not want them printed on the ballot paper alongside their names. Perhaps they would regard this as a severe handicap! I am quite sure that no candidate sponsored by the great Australian Labor Party would be ashamed to have the name of the Australian Labor Party listed on the ballot paper beside his or her name.

Further conclusive proof, if it were needed, of the Opposition’s cynical attitude towards the present Bill is provided by its opposition to the drawing for positions on ballot papers at House of Representatives elections. This is the method currently used for Senate elections. Logically it should be extended to cover House of Representatives elections as well. However, the Opposition Parties have exploited the present alphabetical principle so as to ensure that their candidates are placed on the ballot papers ahead of the Australian Labor Party’s candidates so that they may obtain the benefit of what is often called the ‘donkey’ vote. At the 1974 election, for example, the Opposition Parties chose their candidates so as to gain maximum benefit from the exploitation of the alphabetical system in those divisions in which the result was likely to be close. At the 1974 House of Representatives election in 26 out of 37 of those divisions which could be said to be marginal- that is, where the winning margin, after allowing for either actual or notional distribution of preferences, was under 5 per cent- the candidates sponsored by the Opposition Parties were placed higher on the ballot paper than candidates sponsored by the Australian Labor Party. At the 1972 House of Representatives election, candidates sponsored by the Opposition Parties were ranked ahead of the Australian Labor Party’s candidates on the ballot paper in 26 out of 32 such divisions. I seek leave of the House to incorporate 2 tables documenting this point. The tables which I wish to have incorporated are:

Table I- Order of candidates on ballot papers in marginal divisions at 1974 House of Representatives election.

Table II- Order of candidates on ballot-papers in marginal divisions at 1972 House of Representatives election.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr DALY:

-I thank the Committee. Obviously, those figures are not the result of chance, but rather of a policy of deliberate exploitation of the alphabetical listing system. Naturally, the Opposition Parties would not like to see that system replaced by one that is fair to all candidates.

The Opposition’s cynical approach to this Bill is again demonstrated by its rejection of the provisions in the Bill for the reform of the postal voting procedures. It is well known that the present procedures are open to abuse by party workers. A common form of abuse is for party workers to compile lists of electors who voted by post at the previous election and then forward to all such people semi-completed postal vote application forms in the hope of influencing voters to support a particular party. One has only to look at the percentage of postal votes which favour the Liberal and Country Parties to realise which parties are responsible for most of these abuses. The Government has proposed to inhibit such malpractices by preventing party workers from examining the lists of names of postal voters, except when this is absolutely necessary for an inquiry into an alleged or suspected contravention of the Act or for a petition to a Court of Disputed Returns. We have proposed to give the Chief Australian Electoral Officer power to vary the form of postal vote applications at each election to prevent the dubious practice of stockpiling partially completed forms. The Opposition has opposed or amended both of those proposals.

The Australian public was somewhat indignant, and rightly so, at the time taken to finalise the results of the House of Representatives and Senate elections held in May 1974. The Government therefore proposed to alter the provisions of the Act in relation to postal voting with a view to earlier finalisation of election results. We aimed at an earlier deadline for receipt of applications for postal votes and an earlier deadline for the receipt of completed postal votes by the appropriate returning officer. Taken together, these proposals would have reduced the time taken for the processing of election results by some weeks. Once again, the Opposition has cynically rejected these proposals in the interests of narrow Party advantage.

The same sad comment must also be made on the Opposition’s attitude to the Government’s proposal to close the poll at 6 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. This measure would have enabled an earlier posting of progressive figures on polling night and would have increased the probability that, by the end of counting on that night, the result of the election would be fairly clear. We proposed only an arrangement that was already practised by the well known radical, Mr Joh BjelkePetersen, in the Queensland State elections.

I have already made reference to the deliberate attempt to confuse electors at the 1974 elections by means of a nomination of a very large number of candidates. The results of this campaign were particularly noticeable on the New South Wales Senate ballot papers where voters were required to rank up to 73 candidates. The Government proposed to raise the deposit necessary for candidates at Senate elections to $1,000. This would have effectively reduced the number of frivolous candidates, without affecting the candidates of the major political parties, and enabled more electors to register a formal vote. The Opposition parties rejected this proposal, thereby leaving the deposit for Senate candidates at $250. 1 am sure that everyone will be able to draw their own conclusions from these tactics.

There are other examples which I could quote to demonstrate the degree to which the Opposition’s amendments have effectively nullified virtually all the major reform proposals contained in the Bill. However it would be just one long, sad story, further detailing the cynical approach which the Opposition parties take to this important Bill- a Bill aimed at reducing malpractices, simplifying and clarifying the act of voting, and a speedier finalisation of election results.

The Government is dedicated to a just and equitable electoral system. It is basic to our democratic society. The Liberal Party and the National Country Party, by their opposition to all proposals for electoral reform, clearly indicate to the Australian public that they believe in gerrymandering’, ‘loaded’ electorates, and outdated and unjust electoral procedures. By their actions and their votes in this House and in the Senate, they stand convicted on this charge. The Government will not accept such Opposition emasculation of this piece of major legislation and it is now inevitable that the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974 will join the long list of Bills providing the Government with grounds for another double dissolution.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The speech just delivered by the Minister in charge of electoral laws, the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), was not, as listeners would know, a dispassionate, rational view of electoral laws and the amendments proposed by the Government in the Bill. It was a very partisan speech. I think he displayed, by his demeanour and tone, the partisan attitude which he takes on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to this Bill and to the amendments made by the Senate. He spoke of the unceremonious defeat of the original Bill in 1974, without explaining that it was rammed through this House, that little time was given to the Senate to consider its far reaching provisions and that it was one of a number of far reaching Bills which had to be considered in that week. So the Opposition had to deal with it in short order. He did not explain that we went into the amendments which we proposed to the Bill in great detail both in this House and subsequently in the Senate when the Bill was re-presented.

He said that I produced, on behalf of the Opposition, at the eleventh hour, as he put it, 47 amendments to the Bill. What a misrepresentation that was, and it was only one of many. Those 47 amendments were put to the Government in the same way as amendments are put to this House by the Government and the Opposition each time that amendments are proposed -namely, when the Committee stage of the Bill is reached. I invite the Leader of the House to adjourn debate of the Bill until there is time for the amendments to be considered by him. I had hoped that he might take a reasonable approach to some of the amendments- if not all of themand that he might agree to some of them. But he went on implacably. The reason he went on implacably was that, taken as a whole, the Bill without the amendments is highly favourable to one Party in this Parliament- the Australian Labor Party. It is a partisan Bill, in the main, and of course the Opposition will contest it.

A number of amendments to which the Opposition agreed were referred to somewhat briefly by the Minister. I invite him to introduce a Bill containing only those amendments so that we get improvements in the law which are agreed to by both sides of the Parliament. After all, surely there is something to be said, in matters affecting the electoral laws, of an endeavour to get all parties to agree to amendments and not have this confrontation and these arguments backwards and forwards in which the Minister indulges. He takes the attitude ‘take it or leave it; this is what we want’. I should like to examine quickly some of the points involved. Although the Minister had unlimited time in which to canvass these matters I have very limited time. The Minister said that the existing laws helped to keep the Australian Labor Party out of office. Of course, it was elected under those laws in the 1972 election and again in the 1974 election so the laws cannot be so very biased. In his speech the Minister referred to reform. That is a matter of definition. It is apparently reform if it helps the Austraiian Labor Party, and regression and reaction if it helps the other parties. He talked about abuse of the postal vote system. If the Minister wishes, I will give him the names of some Labor Party candidates who have indulged in just that abuse which he claims to find so abhorrent. Let me just point out -

Mr Riordan:

– Who are they?

Mr GARLAND:

– I will tell the honourable member if he presses me hard enough but I do not think that it is proper to do so without warning.

Mr Riordan:

– Why do you not elaborate on it?

Mr GARLAND:

– If the honourable member will move that I be granted an extension of time when it runs out in 6 minutes, I will be happy to elaborate on it. In the last election the Australian Labor Party received 49 per cent of the vote and a small majority of five in this House. That is close enough. Why do we need to have such large scale changes as are suggested here? Why do we need changes in boundaries which, of course, would give the Australian Labor Party in most of the States a potential proportion of seats greatly in excess of the Party’s potential proportion of votes, if we base that on the figures at the last 2 elections in 1 972 and 1 974.

The Minister employed a very basic debating trick which I must immediately demolish. He referred to Mr Mackerras and said he was the adviser of the Opposition. I want to tell the Minister that Mr Mackerras is not an adviser to me. Mr Mackerras knows full well that usually I do not agree with him but he is, of course, entitled to his own views. To try to say that somehow or other we take notice of the views put forward by Mr Mackerras and then in the next breath to read an article in which he criticised the arguments I used, is surely stretching that debating trick too far.

The Minister talked about the very high informal votes in the Senate. Of course, the Labor Party introduced that system. Surely to heaven, it would be a brave man who would try to claim that a change in the system will really reduce very much the number of informal votes. It sounds a great number the way the Minister put it but actually it is a rather moderate percentage. Although he talked about right wing candidates and all that sort of emotive stuff, the fact of the matter is that the informal vote percentage on the last election was not greatly different from that in previous elections.

He talked about the election result in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in respect of the optional preference system which, of course, is the Labor Party’s first step towards a first past the post system. The Australian Labor Party has long wanted that. It has changed its policy between the 2 of these alternatives. It does not like the full preference system that we have. Why does not the Government like it? What is unfair about the system which we have had for so long and which so many countries regard as highly desirable? It gives each voter a final choice between the 2 most favoured candidates. That is what the full preferential voting system does. The optional preference system certainly will give the Labor Party a small edge- not big enough to win in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, where it went down so badly. In a close election it would mean a few per cent in the Labor Party’s favour, and that is all it is interested in.

I said that there are a number of far-reaching proposals in this legislation. They have been debated. The Minister reviewed them. In the few moments left to me I want just to refer to them so that those who are listening and those who are interested may understand that the Opposition has well based objections to these matters. They are based on the reasons I have given. The Labor Party seeks what it calls reform in order to help itself at election time. It seeks to prevent the counting of postal votes after the polls close on polling night- not in the least in order to get a quick result, but because it is sure on past records that those votes will not favour the Labor Party. Is that so bad? Those votes are from Australian citizens. Surely those who are in isolated regions, or those who are sick or for some other reason cannot get to a polling booth, should have a reasonable opportunity to have their votes counted. Many of their votes would not be counted under this system because there would not be time, particularly with the mail service run by this Government, for the votes to get to the appropriate polling booths so that they could be checked and counted in the usual way.

The Government wants to have the names of political parties on the ballot papers to help itself. It has set up a structure in which the determination of this matter is to be done not by the courts or by an independent body but by an electoral officer, a servant of the Government.

Mr Riordan:

– How do you know this?

Mr GARLAND:

– I said all this when the matter was last debated in this chamber. If the honourable member was listening- and I think he was- he would have heard. I want it to be clear that this is a bad system. In the past we have had the experience of seeing our Party’s name very nearly copied. Honourable members opposite know of that experience. They know that a lot of confusion can come about in this way. That is what is sought. It is a Labor Party attempt to create difficulties for the other parties. I pointed out in the previous debate on this matter that there is much to be said for a member coming to this place as an individual, no matter how much parties are involved. Surely it is important for a candidate, when he presents himself to his electorate, to have some personal attachments.

I close my remarks by saying that the attempt in these proposed changes is to create a confrontation. If the Minister wishes to make those changes on which all sides are agreed, let him bring in a Bill containing those and split this Bill. To adopt some of his words, this is not a just and equitable Bill; it is a biased one in favour of the Labor Party. It would not result in reformdedicated to reform, though he claims to be; it would result in advantage to the Labor Party. I rest my case on the point that the present law allowed this Government to be elected twice; so it cannot be so bad.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the Senate’s amendments be disagreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Division:

Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of . the Speaker.

I notice that the Speaker is sitting here and I believe, Sir, that under the -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. That section relates only to the proceedings of the House itself.

Mr McMahon:

– I disagree with you, Sir. Obviously you cannot read English.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You are free to pursue your disagreement at some other time but not now.

Mr McMahon:

– I wish you would read it, Sir, and come to a proper literal interpretation of the English.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. I should like to point out that former Speaker John McLeay, voted in full House while the Right Honourable Member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) was Prime Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call the Minister to order. There is no point in any further discussion. I have ruled against the point of order.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That Mr Stewart, Mr Riordan and the mover be appointed a Committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. (Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows):

Because the Senate amendments have the effect of removing from the Bill the electoral reforms agreed to by this House, in particular the major reforms contained in the clauses dealing with optional preferential voting for Senate and House of Representatives elections, the printing of party affiliations against the names of candidates on ballot papers for the purpose of clarifying the choice open to electors when they cast their votes, the drawing for positions on ballot papers at House of Representatives elections, and those reforming postal voting procedures.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the Committee ‘s reasons be adopted.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2792

DARWIN CYCLONE DAMAGE COMPENSATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We seek to assist the citizens of Darwin who have been battling to re-establish their homes and businesses and to get themselves back on their feet in their city. Speed has really always been essential. While speaking on this subject, I would like to thank the people of Australia and the Government for their early support for Darwin and its citizens. However, I want to refer to Mr Ron Withnall, an independent member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly whom the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) referred to as the ‘Northern Territory galah’. I spring to Mr Withnall’s defence by saying that the Minister was most unfair in his criticism. Mr Withnall is a former Crown law officer. Mr Withnall was a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Council for many years and is now a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. He did some very constructive work on the Darwin Reconstruction Commission Bill. I think the Minister for the Northern Territory was carried away when he made his remark. I hope he was because it is quite incorrect and completely wrong to call Mr Ron Withnall, M.L.A. a ‘galah’. Mr Withnall did say that something had gone wrong with Darwin since the cyclone. The cyclone was a tragedy, but many people are now inclined to believe that the greater tragedy is following in the wake of that cyclone.

To a great extent the present situation is the result of Government mishandling and politicking. Mr Withnall said that there is frustration and despair in Darwin at the slowness of the Government in its actions to get the business of the reconstruction of Darwin under way. Since the time when Mr Withnall wrote this letter, contracts have been let for the construction of 1300 houses. But confusion surrounds the situation in Darwin with respect to ownership of premises, and the people of Darwin have been denied real information as to building standards and the building code. Mr Withnall is quite right, as is the new mayor, Alderman Ella Stack, when they say that many people will leave Darwin and that the morale there is low. Morale is low, but I think the actions that have been taken and what will result from the passage of this Bill will give the people of Darwin heart. I hope that the passage of this Bill will and the writing of the contracts will have that result. In the present situation shortages exist. Strikes have occurred. Tremendous frustration is felt by the people throughout the city at this time. In my opinion, undue influence has been exerted by some Government servants, some Government supporters and by the Minister for the Northern Territory.

I turn to clause 4 of the Bill, which really is the thrust of the measure. An amendment which I propose to move during the Committee stage is being circulated to honourable members. Clause 4, as it now stands, gives a tremendous power to the Minister. That power was vague as defined in this Bill when introduced in the Senate. Clause 4 provides that the Minister may authorise the payment by Australia- the Commonwealth Government, I imagine- in accordance with directions given by him, of compensation in respect of loss of, or damage to, property arising out of the cyclone. I might add that although many of the appropriate notices to this effect have appeared to the Press many, many people have not been able to get anywhere with regard to compensation for loss of or damage to property arising out of the cyclone. Nothing has happened. On occasions people have asked me to try to clarify the matter. I do not know that it has been clarified. Many people have said: ‘We imagine that we have suffered from the cyclone but nothing has happened. ‘ It was said by Senator Wheeldon, when he introduced the Bill into the Senate, that the Minister’s powers will be delegated to persons acting on his behalf to determine to whom compensation may be paid, the amount of the compensation and how it will be assessed. In all those instances the decision is unexaminable by anybody and is without appeal. This is why proposed new sub-clause 4 (c) is worded as it is. If the proposal is not amended, it gives very dangerous power, which I think is far too great, to the people who will advise the Minister. We do not know who will be advising the Minister. They could be members of his Department or members of a committee that has been set up or will be set up. Unless there is some form of appeal one does not know how the ordinary sufferer from the cyclone will get on.

A similar situation has been instanced by the recent announcement of the Minister for the Northern Territory of the members of the Darwin Citizens Council, which was originally the Darwin Citizens Advisory Council. It was notified in the Darwin Reconstruction Bill that there would be a Darwin Citizens Council to advise the Minister. I did not receive an answer to the question I asked the Minister on this matter this morning despite the fact that I showed him a question I was unable to ask last Thursday and despite the fact that I was not able to speak to the amendment. In the case of the Darwin Citizens Council, 1 5 people have been appointed out of twenty who could be appointed. The Minister has the final say just as the people appointed by him under the provisions of this Bill have the final say and the appointments cannot be changed. Of the 15 appointments to the Darwin Citizens Council four are interesting. One is President of the Northern Territory branch of the Labor Party in the in the Northern Territory, another is the Secretary of that body, another was a defeated Labor candidate at the elections of 19 October for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and another was a Labor organiser in the May elections last year. When the Darwin Reconstruction Bill was before the House the Minister mentioned the stacking of committees. This is very relevant because the Minister for the Northern Territory then said:

There are plenty of reasons why a member of the Darwin Citizens’ Council should be appointed by the GovernorGeneral in the same way as are other members of the Commission. If one looks at the situation one can see that the Commission could be stacked.

In speaking to the same proposal I said:

We believe that if members are appointed by the Governor-General the Commission, to use the Minister’s own words, could be stacked.

So we are eagerly waiting to see what will happen. We have seen already that the Minister has stacked the Darwin Citizens Council. That is a point which I wish to raise in relation to this Legislation. I have spoken about it strongly. I believe that it could happen under this legislation. I think it is very unfortunate that just at the time when this legislation is going through the Parliament we learn about what has happened in relation to the Darwin Citizens Council. No explanation or reason has been given for it. Perhaps the reason is that those appointed to the Council happens to be members of the same political party as the Minister. I do not think any members of the Majority Party are on it.

I hope that what happened with the Darwin Citizens Council will not happen under the legislation we are now considering, and I hope that the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is in charge of this Bill, will assure me that this sort of thing will not happen. To ensure that it does not happen, on behalf of the people of Darwin, I am to move an amendment in the Committee stage. We feel that the people of Darwin must have a right of appeal. On the form of the Minister for the Northern Territory, it does not look as though they will have any right of appeal. I urge the Special Minister of State to consider seriously the amendment which has been circulated in my name and to give the people of Darwin that right of appeal.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (5.47)-The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) referred to some vagueness on the part of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he was introducing this Bill. It appears to me that the honourable member showed a good deal of vagueness himself when he was putting forward some reasons for his amendment. He made a lot of statements but produced very little evidence to support them. He said that there would be little right of appeal because of the form of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson). It appears to me that the Minister for the Northern Territory has been bending over backwards to meet the requirements of the people of the Northern Territory. I think that on close examination the honourable member will find that the Minister, just to suit the wishes of the people in the Northern Territory, has altered many of the things he intended to do.

I am in support of the Darwin Cyclone Damage Compensation Bill. Together with the other measures that have been taken by the Australian Government, it proves the Government’s sincere compassion and concern for the tragedy and the plight of the Darwin people following Cyclone Tracy, which passed through Darwin on 25 December 1974. There can be no doubt that because of the extent of the damage, the loss of property, the suffering, personal injury and death, the compensation has been generous. Some people compare it with the assistance given in the tragic bush fires which were raging in New South Wales during the same period. I think this is a very unjust comparison, because it must be remembered that, whereas the Australian Government was able to give funds directly to the Northern Territory, funds appropriated in respect of the bush fires had to be channelled through the States. In this regard the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) has already stated that at the time of the last Premiers Conference all the finance that the States had asked for had been given to them, and that they have not asked for anything further since.

I believe there is another reason why there should not be any hold up in the passing of this Bill. I believe that the people of Australia themselves showed by their spontaneous action what they expected of the national Government. The donations they made indicated that it was expected that there would be some prompt action by the Australian Government. I think it is a tribute to the Australian people that they did respond so swiftly and generously to the plight of Darwin citizens. I am very pleased to be able to state that during that period in my electorate, when the whole of the western division of New South Wales was on fire with probably one of the worst bushfires in Australia ‘s history, I was asked in 3 areas to open appeals for the people of Darwin. I think that was a mighty effort on the part of the people in those areas.

I am particularly pleased about this legislation because as a member of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, which was set up to investigate and to report back to this Parliament on the forms of government for the Northern Territory, I visited Darwin both before and after cyclone Tracy. Even the most hard-hearted person would be shocked at the change in Darwin and the devastation which almost wiped out this great city. I can well understand the gigantic task which the Department of Repatriation and Compensation has in collecting information that is necessary to enable it to estimate the number of households, organisations and businesses which were in Darwin on Christmas Day. There is still conflicting evidence about the number of people who lost their lives. I think the work involved in the assessment of property damage and the provision of compensation after such a short period reflects great credit on the Department. Nevertheless a survey taken so soon after the disaster cannot be expected to be completely accurate. But I should not think this ought to hold up the passage of the Bill because the main thing is to get some assistance to these people. Cyclone Tracy had little respect for private ownership. Anyone who inspected the area would have seen that household contents and whole houses had been lifted and dumped some kilometres away from their original location. The debris was a twisted and tangled mess. Some of the debris had been carted away but there were still piles of debris ready to be taken away when we were in Darwin.

In most instances all that one could see was rows and rows of cement piers with cement floors perched on top of them. There were no houses at all. Some of the people had made temporary shelters underneath these floors. In other areas in Darwin we could see small rusty houses with no apparent damage, other than perhaps where some flying debris had knocked down a fence or caused damage of that kind. The people of Darwin to whom I spoke were full of praise for the advertising campaign that the honourable member for the Northern Territory mentioned, and the assistance given by departmental officials was highly praised by people who were responding to the survey. I found that they were very appreciative of the additional investigation which was carried out in the States and in the provincial centres. There is no doubt that most of the people affected by the cyclone will get the compensation to which they are entitled. Of course one will always hear stories that some people are taking advantage of the situation. There were some terrible stories circulating in Darwin, as always happens in a situation of this kind, but one could obtain little evidence to support the claims that were being made.

I feel that it is very important that the Bill should have a speedy passage through this House. Already in the little over 4 months since cyclone Tracy struck a good deal has been done to rehabilitate the city of Darwin and its people, and one must admire the great sense of cooperation and self-help among the people themselves. Just visualise the number of sheets of new iron and the number of nails which were required to provide temporary protection. No doubt this was an outstanding effort. One could say that almost every man, woman and child at some stage must have been driving roofing nails into the roofs of houses in Darwin. Of course, some of these repairs are only temporary; some of them are permanent. One lady to whom I spoke told me that a gang of fettlers had put the roof back on her house and they did not even match the flutes. I must say that I could not see any work of that nature although on many roofs the iron was not trimmed off and was left overhanging. There is no doubt that a good bit of the work is temporary. It may not have to be done again but some adjustment will have to be made to it.

There is much more to be done. The situation could be classed only as temporary. The real job of rebuilding Darwin has hardly started. It is essential for this Bill to be passed as quickly as possible because many Darwin people have had to leave their homes and their usual employment. Many families have left Darwin. Some of them say that they are not sure whether they will ever return. However, the vast majority of people whom I have contacted are very anxious to return to Darwin and to resume normal family life. It is obvious that they have undergone much suffering and are still in very difficult circumstances. Without going too far, one could say that they face a very uncertain future.

The proposal before the House is not aimed at the reconstruction of Darwin, nor at the resettlement of those who were resident there on 25 December 1974, but to a large degree it will recompense partially for what they have lost. I congratulate the Australian Government for its prompt and meaningful action to compensate the people of Darwin and to rebuild that great city. I hope that the measure will not be delayed unduly while we wrangle over some amendments which the Opposition always seems to want to move when we want to do something speedily for the people in Darwin to ease their great suffering.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

Proposed new clauses 4A, 4B and 4C.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I seek leave to move 3 amendments as one amendment.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

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

Mr CALDER:

-I move:

After clause 4, insert the following new clauses: 4a. Compensation shall be payable only to persons who-

have suffered loss or damage to property as a result of the cyclone;

make application in writing for compensation, and

give proof of possession, entitlement and loss or damage suffered. 4b. ( 1 ) Compensation shall be assessed on the basis of the market value of the property as at 24 December 1974.

Subject to the succeeding sub-sections, compensation in respect of any property (whether insured or not) shall be one-half of so much of the loss or damage as is not covered by insurance.

The maximum amount of compensation in respect of loss of, or damage to, a private dwelling (including a boat or caravan used as a primary private dwelling) or premises on a property used for primary production is $25,000.

Compensation is not payable in respect of a private aircraft or in respect of a boat, other than a boat used as a primary dwelling.

Compensation in respect of personal possessions, including motor vehicles, caravans not used as primary dwellings, furniture and fittings, shall be determined on the basis of the possessions of members of a household and shall be subject to a maximum amount of $5,000 in respect of a household.

The maximum amount of compensation in respect of the business premises of a person is $25,000.

The maximum amount of compensation in respect of business plant, equipment and stock of a person (including crops and livestock in a business of primary production) is $50,000. 4c. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister or of a person authorized by the Minister in respect of a claim for compensation under this Act made by the person may appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which shall review the decision and either confirm, reverse or vary it.’.

Proposed new clause 4c represents the thrust of my remarks in this debate. In the Bill there is no right for any citizen to appeal. As I said in the second reading debate, we consider that a citizen, whether in Darwin or anywhere else, has a right to appeal to someone. I point out to the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) that this is a similar amendment in thought to the amendment which was accepted to the Darwin Reconstruction Bill. We managed to have a sensible amendment passed in relation to that Bill whereby the citizens could inspect the reconstruction plans which were to be on view for a month, and they were, and to which they could lodge objections. I think that the Government could be commended on the actions it took in those circumstances. This is a very similar amendment. I would hope that the Government, including the honourable member for Wills and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), who visits Darwin from time to time for some reason or other, would support me in what I am saying.

I suggest that there could be such a series of insurance claims that the Supreme Court could be overrun or flooded with litigation. I suggest that what the amendment proposes would be only a temporary measure and that upon the implementation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, it would take over from the Supreme Court. I emphasise that the citizen should have some right of appeal. I see that in another place the argument was used that such appeals could be made to an ombudsman, but I point out that in the Ombudsman Bill it is stated that the ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action taken by a Minister. So again, the decisions are made by the Minister, as is virtually every decision in relation to Darwin reconstruction.

I ask that the Government take this amendment seriously. The people of Darwin are in a state of depression. They are worried about their future and need continuing consideration from this Government. I put it to the Government very seriously that it consider the insertion of clause 4c Of course, the rest of the amendments are virtually in line with the figures that were cited by the Minister when he presented the original Darwin Reconstruction Bill.

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

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment for the simple reason that what is not required, particularly in dealing with matters of this nature which require compassion, understanding and a certain amount of flexibility, is putting down in legal terms what will be the strict limitations of a person’s rights. This matter has been the subject of debate already in the Senate where a similar amendment to this was not carried. It was proposed in the Senate by the insertion of one new clause to limit the amount of compensation to $25,000 in respect of business premises. Let me draw attention to some of the problems in the amendment proposed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). He says that it would be much more satisfactory for the people of Darwin if these rules which he proposes in his amendment were applied.

Let us take one example of what could happen if there were to be a strict interpretation of those rules. A fisherman who was using a boat for his livelihood would not receive compensation. Surely to goodness the honourable member for the Northern Territory does not want to put a fisherman in a position in which he could not be compensated. That would be the result of his proposed sub-clause 4 (B) (4). It would also mean that the Minister could not give any more than $25,000 as compensation. As I understand it, this is a problem in Darwin. While we will not debate this argument now, I understand that an insurance company has failed and a number of people who had insurance will not be receiving any money. We want to have some flexibility in that situation for people who were prepared to insure. What we are proposing here is to accept the responsibility for half of the balance of the loss in relation to uninsured property. We ought also to adopt some reasonable attitude of mind towards the people who did attempt to insure themselves and who, because their insurance companies failed, are not able to get any compensation.

The Government of its own volition and with understanding of the problems has already carried out a survey which indicates that 60 per cent of the people in Darwin were not insured. This Bill will give at least $58m to people who would otherwise have got nothing. The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has indicated that already he has awaiting settlement about 1000 claims which could come within the provisions of this legislation. Surely no honourable member for the Northern Territory would want to say that these people should not be compensated quickly and efficiently.

The honourable member for the Northern Territory was anxious to emphasise the point that the Minister might make a wrong decision and that therefore there ought to be the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. But the honourable member did not put forward any guidelines as to the basis on which such an appeal would be made. The lawyers would have a feast if appeals were to be lodged on the basis suggested by the honourable member. For instance, what is meant by ‘property’ or ‘household’? A particular interpretation might result in only one person in a household getting compensation. Of course, two or three people could be occupying and sharing the personal effects in one household. There are all sorts of difficulties that could arise in the settlement of these claims. For that reason, clause 4 gives the Minister a discretion. (Quorum formed)

I just emphasise this point: The same amendments, with the exception of the amendments that increases the maximum amount of compensation and brings it into line with the $50,000 proposed by the Minister, were moved and rejected in the Senate. When the amendments were before the Senate the Opposition proposed that the maximum amount of compensation be $25,000. For the reasons that I have mentioned-

Mr Calder:

– It was a typographical error.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It was not a typographical error. It is a problem of trying to put words into print. The honourable member has got himself into a situation in which many people will not get the compensation that the Minister will now be able to give to them because of the legal interpretation that could be placed on the words of his amendment. This will apply particularly to people who did take out insurance but their insurance companies failed; particularly, as I mentioned, to people in the fishing industry who rely on boats for their livelihood and who, under the honourable member’s amendment, would receive no compensation at all; particularly where there is more than one person occupying a household because under this legislation they would not be so limited; and particularly in respect of a person who had an interest in more than one business and who also would not be so limited. There are an infinite number of propositions that are not covered by the amendment.

Let us come to the basic concept. The Government is prepared to give at least $58m to the people of Darwin who have no insurance cover. The Opposition should not restrict this offer. The Minister under clause 6 has to report to the Parliament and it is pretty obvious that if there is any complaint about what should be done the honourable member for the Northern Territory will be the first to raise it in this House. Therefore matters relating to this legislation will be under surveillance. It is with compassionate understanding that we are anxious to get this legislation passed. It has already passed the Senate. There is no reason why the Opposition should obstruct it any further. Any obstruction will only delay consideration of the merits of the claims. For that reason we are most anxious that the Bill be passed this evening. Accordingly, the Government rejects the amendments.

Question put:

That the proposed new clauses (Mr Calder’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 54

NOES: 56

In division:

AYES

NOES

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Deakin must not enter the House. He was out of the House during the division. He must remain out while it is being counted.

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I refer to clause 6, which states that the Minister shall report to the House. We have already had doubts expressed as to whether the Minister should have reported to the House concerning the affairs of the Darwin Cyclone Relief Trust Fund. To my way of thinking he should have presented a report to this House by now. Once again I have likened the occurrences in Darwin to the provisions of this Bill. If the form of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Pattersson) is indicative of what will be the form of the Minister in this case- the only thing that we have to go on is the way in which he has behaved- one has grounds for beginning to wonder whether in actual fact we will be getting the sort of reports that should be tabled in this House. The Opposition’s amendment, which was not accepted by the Committee, was moved on behalf of the citizenry of the Northern Territory. It is also on behalf of the citizenry of the Northern Territory that I have brought this matter to the notice of the Committee.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I want to make the point that the Minister about whom we are talking in this respect is not the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson). The whole speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) seemed to have been devoted to the venting of some sort of spleen that he wanted to vent on a personal basis. I want to make the point that most of the honourable member’s speech was out of order. We tolerated it for the people of the Northern Territory. We did not have to tolerate it because the honourable member was completely out of order in talking about those matters. As has been said time and time again the Minister referred to in the Bill is the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon). So let us get the debate in order. I think that the matter has been completely -

Mr Calder:

– My point is that we cannot rely upon it being done by the Minister who is in charge up there.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do not know whether the honourable member is aware of what he is saying, but the point is that clause 6 says that the Minister, which means the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, shall make a report. That will be done. It is as simple as that.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2799

HEALTH INSURANCE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 May on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-The purpose of the Health Insurance Bill 1975 is to provide benefits for services by optometrists and to provide that these benefits be available under Medibank from 1 July 1975. The Opposition supports the Bill, although Opposition policy varies slightly from Government policy. I will point out the slight variations a little later in my speech. The Opposition does not seek to amend this Bill. Firstly I wish to make some general comments on Liberal-National Country Party policy and approach to the nation’s health. There were a great number of initiatives in the 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government. One would not realise this fact if one listened to Government members in this House, particularly during the 12 months that I have been a member. One would think that all the initiatives in the health and welfare field had come in actual fact from the Australian Labor Party Government.

Let me assure the people of this country that the Liberal-Country parties in government for 23 years initiated a great deal in this field. I refer to the national health scheme, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and other schemes which were improved, amended and upgraded as the nation could afford them. So these social welfare benefits- pensions to the aged, the disabled, deserted mothers and their dependants, unemployment benefits and sickness benefits- were increased in proportion to what the nation could actually afford. The aim of the Liberal and Country parties, which is contrary to what this Government would lead the people of the nation to believe, is to provide for those in need. I want to stress this point: The Opposition in government has intentions to provide for those people who are in need not to create a giant welfare state. I think it is an important point. The Liberal-Country parties in government want to provide incentives for people in this country, to encourage free enterprise, to encourage the people of this nation to be industrious, to encourage a high rate of productivity and to seek full employment. Contrary to the views that are expressed by a number of Ministers, including the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) who is in the House at the moment and who so frequently says that the policy of the Opposition would be to retain a large percentage of unemployment, let me assure the Government and the Minister that it is not the policy of the Opposition to have unemployment.

I submit that the nation must look after those who are less fortunate than many of us- the unemployed, the sick, the accident victims, the aged, the disabled, the deserted mothers and their children- and not encourage the creation of more ‘less fortunates’ as appears to be the case with this Government. One of the dangers of the massive welfare programs that are, as I see them, the aims of the Labor Government, is that they will tend to create in this nation people who do not care or who do not have any incentive. There is a tendency as well for people to become lazy or to lose their purpose in life. The approach of this Government seems to be that it will think for people and that it will care for people. This attitude surely must be deplored. The result is that a person’s brain tends to become inactive, his body tends to become inactive, and in turn the nation becomes inactive.

Mr Cohen:

– Listen to Don Athaldo.

Mr HODGES:

-The honourable member for Robertson interjects. He is rather inactive at the moment. I am sure that many of the electors in his electorate realise this fact. Serious repercussions could result. The nation could lose its standing in the world. It could lose business confidence. Business investment will slump. Risk capital will no longer flow. We have seen this particular situation arise in the last few weeks when the Government unsuccessfully tried to raise a $2,000m loan. This story will be repeated as far as Australia is concerned while we retain a Labor Government. The lenders in this world will not look favourably upon Australia when it comes to lending money. So, the nation will stagnate. This Government frequently claims that the Liberal-Country Party Coalition did very little in the 23 years it was in Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest the honourable gentleman might relate his remarks to the Health Insurance Bill which is a fairly narrow measure.

Mr HODGES:

– I am endeavouring to point out to the House that the difference in policy between the Opposition -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not think that is in question in debate on the second reading debate of this Bill.

Mr HODGES:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to point out the difference between the philosophical approach of the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition and that of the Labor Party in relation to this Bill. Although you have reprimanded me, Mr Speaker, I believe I have done this.

I want now to examine the Bill in a little more detail, particularly the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). The Bill provides that benefits will be paid for services performed by optometrists agreeing to participate in the arrangements that are worked out between the Australian Government and the Australian Optometrical Association. These benefits will be payable for services by participating optometrists. A very important point that must be made is that optometrists must participate in this scheme. The benefits will apply from 1 July 1975 similarly to those under Medibank. They will be paid at the rate of 85 per cent of the negotiated schedule of fees with a maximum patient contribution of $5. Participating optometrists will agree to provide consultations covered by the undertaking at fees no higher than those negotiated between the Australian Optometrical Association and the Australian Government. The Minister went on to mention that participating optometrists virtually must elect to accept the assignment of benefits in full payment for the services provided.

The next point the Minister made was that participating optometrists will undertake to accept the assignment of benefits for most consultations with persons with pensioner medical service entitlements. He went on to say: ‘Any other low income groups agreed to’. I would hope that the Minister would point out to the House what he is implying in relation to ‘any other low income groups ‘.

A further point that is made, I think quite clearly, is that payments are not extended towards the costs of the spectacles or the contact lenses. In other words, the benefit that is paid is for the professional service that is rendered by the optometrist and not for the spectacles or the contact lenses. He stated further that the Australian Optometrical Association and the Austalian Medical Association were consulted in the formulation of the Bill. I would like to point out to the House that representatives of both those organisations also have been consulted by the Opposition. When I refer to the Opposition’s policy a little later I will be able to point out that in fact the Opposition’s policy, although it goes a little further than the Government’s policy, also was formulated as a result of discussions with representatives of these 2 associations. The next major point is that only 2 services will be allowed in any 12 months- that is, an initial consultation and a subsequent consultation- except in specific cases in which the optometrist certifies that in his professional opinion the patient requires additional consultations. I believe that a very important point- one that the Minister must note- is that the use of the services must be monitored very closely. Utilisation will be a very important point to be watched by him and his Department.

The Minister then moved on to talk about contact or corneal lenses. A benefit of 85 per cent of the schedule fee paid to an optometrist will be paid in respect of the initial consultation. Subsequent consultations will fall into 2 categories. The Bill provides for 8 classes of eligible patients who have certain conditions and a ninth class comprising those recommended by medical practitioners. Persons who are not included in the 9 classes mentioned by the Minister and who choose to have contact lenses, perhaps for cosmetic reasons, will receive only 85 per cent of the normal second consultation rate and will be required to meet the remainder of the cost involved. I congratulate and compliment the Minister on the supplementary paper he provided when introducing this Bill. It explains technical terms and I believe gives very important information to the House and to the Australian people.

Another important point made by the Minister was that the Australian College of Opfhalmologists has expressed reservations about the utilisation rates which may apply in relation to the ninth condition. I think this is also something that the Minister might look at very closely. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for a common form of undertaking to be entered into by participating optometrists. It is interesting to note that the Minister may draw up this common form of undertaking only after consultation with the Australian Optometrical Association. Also, he may vary this common form of undertaking only after consultation with this Association. I believe that this is a good requirement and should minimise any conflict between the Government and the AOA. The Bill also provides for a domiciliary visit by an optometrist for those who find it difficult to get to an optometrist It also provides for committees of inquiry and review tribunals, similar to those set up under the Health Insurance Act for the medical profession, to be established in relation to optometrical services.

I quote now from the policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties that was announced on 15 April 1975. It states:

Joint Opposition Parties Policy for Optometrical Benefits.

The Liberal-Country Parties - or the Liberal-National Country Parties- believe that the problem of crippling para-medical costs, for example, physiotherapy after an accident, must be faced by a comprehensive health scheme.

We will encourage the private health funds to provide an optional extras insurance cover for the provision of paramedical services.

We will make Commonwealth benefits available for cases where long-term para-medical services are required. These benefits would be provided where patients who need longterm treatment are not adequately catered for by the expanded community services.

Optometrical Benefits:

  1. Benefits be paid to patients of optometrists for those non-medical refractive services normally rendered by optometrists.
  2. Benefits be 85 per cent of the common fee or the same standard percentage rebate as is paid on medical fees, the common fee to be determined annually by an independent fees tribunal.
  3. No prior medical referral be necessary in order to attract the benefits.
  4. Benefits be restricted to 2 consultations a year, except where an optometrist certifies that one of the following conditions is present:

    1. High Ametropia
    1. Near Point anomaly
    2. Low Vision/Partial Sight
    3. Intolerance
  5. The examination for, prescribing and fitting of contact lenses be considered as a separate schedule item.
  6. Acceptable common fees to the Australian Optometrical Association, based on indices as at January 1975 are:

Item A- Major consultation on first visit- $ 1 3

Item B- Minor consultation or second or subsequent visit-$6.50

Item C- Prescribing and fitting contact lenses- $78 (Equivalent to 6 major consultations)

  1. A review committee be formed to deal with any abuses of the scheme by individual optometrists.

The Opposition Parties believe that except in the circumstances mentioned above, more than 2 visits to an optometrist might be prejudicial to the patient’s wellbeing. For example, a patient who finds a need for a change of spectacles four or five times a year might well be suffering from some basic disease which could cause deterioration in eyesight. In such cases, reference to an opthalmologist would be in the best interest of the patient. Such cases have been cited in our policy statement as follows:

  1. 1 ) High Ametropia: Anisometropia, Myopia, Hyperopsis, Astigmatism.
  2. Near Point Anomaly: Accommodation problems, Convergence problems.
  3. Low Vision/Partial Sight.
  4. Intolerance: Occasionally, even with accurate prescription and dispensing, the patient will not tolerate either the full optical correction or a change in the optical correction. This is due to psychological factors and some modification of the prescription may be necessary. The common cause of intolerance to glasses is inaccuracy in the prescription or the dispensing of the glasses.

I should now like to draw a comparison between the provisions of the Health Insurance Bill and Liberal Party and National Country Party policy. Indeed, there are great similarities but there are some significant differences. The Liberal Party and National Country Party policy accepts the possibility that a patient requiring frequent consultations for reasons other than the 4 conditions specified ought more properly to seek medical advice in case his complaint is a more fundamental one, such as a disease which could cause further damage to vision. It is interesting to note that the Australian Medical Association has suggested that young people should, as a matter of course, be directed to doctors rather than optometrists because of the dangers of inappropriate or inadequate treatment which could cause life-long visual problems for children. The benefits proposed by the Liberal Party and the National Country Party are based on a common fee schedule. The benefits proposed in the Bill are based on participation in a scheme of prescribed maximum fees and the acceptance of bulk billing, that is, the assignment of 85 per cent benefit as full settlement for certain classes of patients.

With regard to contact or corneal lenses, the Opposition recognises that the payment of benefits for all who want such lenses should be made available, whether they be for specific needs of the patients to improve their sight or whether they be for cosmetic reasons. People will select contact lenses because they feel that glasses perhaps do not enhance their appearance. It is interesting to note that the cost of ordinary glasses, depending on the State that one is in and the optometrist whom one attends is from $30 to $40. Contact lenses cost approximately $100 for hard lenses and $150 to $170 for soft lenses, depending largely on the lense designed. We in Opposition believe it should be recognised that contact lenses are selected for cosmetic reasons but that the deterrent to the patient’s selecting contact lenses will be the extra cost involved. Under our scheme hard lenses would cost a patient approximately $34 and soft lenses approximately $100. 1 think we must remember that the medical profession performs quite a number of operations involving plastic surgery on patients for cosmetic reasons.

Mr Chipp:

– Could you amplify that?

Mr HODGES:

-As the honourable member for Hotham suggests, this could be amplified. A number of plastic surgeons in this country perform operations involving plastic surgery to the great benefit of the Australian people. I now turn to make some comments about the professional ability of optometrists in Australia, because for many years opthamalogists and optometrists have been in conflict. Of course, the patients of opthalmologists have been able to receive benefits that have not been available to the patients of optometrists. I believe that optometrists in Australia have a high standard. They are men and women of integrity. Their ability is unquestionable. No trade or profession is perfect. It does not matter to which trade or profession one turns one finds that there are always isolated cases of people who are unscrupulous, but I believe that optometrists in Australia provide a standard in their profession that is probably second to none in the world. They are highly skilled people who employ modern technical equipment. The Optometry Advisory Panel of the University of New South Wales virtually determines the standards for optometry in that State. That panel presented a paper dated 22 July 1966. The members of the panel who signed that paper were: C. J. Milner, Head, School of Physics; J. Lederer, Associate Professor of Optometry; J. Ludbrook, Head, School of Surgery; and F. C. Hollow, Associate Professor of Opthalmology. One can easily see that the standards set by that panel would be very high. It is interesting to note that optometrists who qualify in the schools of optometry in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are recognised in all States of Australia.

Under the scheme we are discussing optometrists will have a moral obligation to their profession and to the Australian people because obviously greater use will be made of their services. The Opposition has some reservations about optometrists taking on extra responsibility. There will be dangers and optometrists must exercise extreme care and caution. I believe that their responsibilities will increase when they enter into this scheme. I illustrate this by referring to the fact that the medical profession generally and the governments in a number of countries realise that there are dangers in recognising optometrists perhaps to the same extent that we propose to recognise them in Australia. For instance, the New Zealand Department of Health, in a publication entitled ‘Therapeutic Notes No. 128, 1974’, issued this warning:

Examination of the eye by an optometrist (as distinct from sight testing) is usually of value only when a positive finding leads to a referral for medical assessment, and no secure reliance can be placed on a negative result.

The Canadian Royal Commission on Health Services in 1964 said:

The Commission is concerned that the very conditions most likely to be missed by an optometrist are among those having the most serious effects. Since the consequence of loss of sight is so serious we believe that every effort should be made to eliminate all elements of risk.

In England in 1970 the General Optical Council issued an instruction that if an optometrist should undertake orthoptic treatment the case should be regularly reviewed by an ophthalmologist. Under the National Health Act in Britain optometrists are not recognised as being competent to detect ocular disease or abnormality. I think it is interesting also to note that there is a lack of legal responsibility for clinical decisions by optometrists. Because the law sets out to limit people’s activities to their competence, the full responsibility for clinical decisions concerning diagnosis is not the responsibility at law of any optometrist. It is doubtful, in the absence of any statutory requirements for referral of disease to medical practitioners, that any civil action for negligence by an optometrist would succeed should he fail to diagnose eye pathology. This is because of the statutory limitations on the scope of his activities provided in the State optometrical registration Acts. Diagnosis not being his role, his failure to diagnose, while regrettable, cannot be regarded as professional negligence. Any condition that requires a change of spectacles more than once a year is very likely to be caused by disease which requires medical diagnosis and treatment.

In addition to placing extra emphasis on optometrists observing the fact that they have great responsibility- they will perhaps have a greater responsibility because there will be increased usage of their services- I also want to warn optometrists that there is a great onus on them not to abuse this system; not to abuse it from a professional point of view and not to abuse it because of the costs to the Government. There is also, of course, an onus on the Government to ensure that the scheme does not get out of hand. One has only to look at the national health scheme as an example. By far the great majority of medical practitioners in this country are honest and carry out their duties in an efficient and an honest manner, but there are some who do abuse the system. No doubt it will require a great deal of vigilance on the part of the Minister and his staff to ensure that the optometrists of this country do not abuse this scheme.

There will probably be a bonus as a result of the increased usage because no doubt more people will be having their eyes tested, and I believe that optometrists do have the ability, if they are careful in their examinations, to detect many important and insidious diseases of the eye. For instance, I believe that a number of them have detected glaucoma, which is an extremely dangerous eye disease. If optometrists can detect glaucoma at an early stage and refer patients to ophthalmologists, it is quite possible that the sight of many thousands of Australians will be saved in the future. I am pleased to say that the Opposition has pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

-I was delighted to hear the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) in so much accord with the contents of the Health Insurance Bill ( 1975) and I was very interested to hear him tell us what is the(Quorum formed) I thank the members of the Australian Labor Party for coming in. There are one National Country Party member and 5 Liberal Party members present to hear me. I must congratulate the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) on letting us know the contents of the Liberal Party’s policy in regard to optometrists. His Party had 23 years to get going on this matter but did not do so. The honourable member for Petrie mentioned that there are very many lazy people in our community who are taking advantage of the welfare services that this

Government is providing. I point out that at the moment we have a shambles of a health service, produced by the former coalition government, in which ability to pay is the only thing which really matters.

Having said that, I would like to say that I am delighted that optometrists have been included in the Medibank plan. I am sure that their inclusion is welcomed not only by optometrists but also by the people of Australia. Optometrists have served Australia very well in the past in ways which we all probably take for granted. It is peculiar to Australia that our outback areas are served so well. Many optometrists make periodic- weekly or monthly- excursions of one, two or three days to remote communities to provide optometrical care. We even have a flying optometrist who covers part of his territory by aeroplane and the rest in a caravan with a fully equipped optometrical office. There are very few countries which are served so well by their optometrists. Optometrists have been neglected for 20 years in this country and I am very glad to see that they and the services they render to the Australian public have been recognised and that they will take a full role in the Medibank scheme.

The proposed optometrical benefit arrangements covered in this Bill were developed in close and very harmonious consultation with representatives of the Australian Optometrical Association. The proposals have also been discussed with representatives of the Australian Medical Association and a representative of the Australian College of Opthalmologists. It should be emphased that participation in this new arrangement is entirely at the discretion of each optometrist and in no way is there any compulsion on any individual. Optometrical consultations will be introduced into the health insurance program and participating optometrists will perform services which will become eligible for benefits in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Health Insurance Act. They will be paid at the rate of 85 per cent of the negotiated schedule fees with a maximum patient payment of $5- the same conditions as apply to medical benefits under the Medibank scheme. As in Medibank, where the optometrist accepts the assignment of benefits it will be in full settlement and the patient will not pay at all. Participating optometrists will undertake to accept the assignment of benefits for most consultations with persons with pensioner medical service entitlement or any other low income group as agreed between the Australian Optometrical Association and the Australian Government and the dependants of these 2 groups.

The provisions of the Bill will become effective from 1 July this year and will expand the benefits already available under Medibank. They will remove the limitation existing in the present health insurance scheme where Australian Government benefits are not payable for a professional service which results in the prescription of spectacles. No one in this House will deny that optometrists are professional. In fact, Australia has produced more than its share of teachers and researchers qualified with advanced degrees, many of whom have distinguished themselves overseas as well as at home and, additionally, in related areas of science in Australia.

The provisions of this Bill are necessary when we realise that, at present, patients are eligible only for reimbursement of payment of medical specialist services to opthalmologists when they are referred to the opthalmologist by an optometrist or by a general practitioner. Further, the patient is denied reimbursement if, in consultation with the opthalmologist, a prescription for glasses is received. Here I should mention that it is not intended to extend the present benefits to the provision of financial assistance towards the cost of spectacles or contact lenses. This is presently under examination. But the new benefit arrangements authorised in the Bill will extend to consultations resulting in the prescription and fitting of contact lenses.

Mr Lloyd:

– It is most ungallant that there are so few Labor members present to hear the honourable member for Henty. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (A quorum being counted)-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I think that the honourable member for Tangney who came through the door should actually come into the chamber. (Quorum formed).

Mrs CHILD:

– Contact lenses will be covered under a set of 9 conditions, basically designed to give the use of contact lenses to those whose vision will besignificantly improved by their use. I was interested to hear the cosmetic reasons which the honourable member for Petrie gave in respect of this matter. But I would imagine that at this time the cost would be prohibitive. As the Opposition is always telling the Government to watch the matter of costs, I think Opposition members will be rather pleased to see that vision must besignificantly improved to attract the benefit, rather than to apply the benefit in respect of the cosmetic aspect raised by the honourable member for Petrie. The list, incorporated in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), has been accepted by the Australian Optometrical Association, after being drawn up by an independent ophthalmologist. The provisions will be reviewed periodically.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the Minister for Social Security to draw up a common form of undertaking. Each optometrist who participates in this new benefit arrangement will be required to given an undertaking in accordance with the common form. The Minister will consult with the Australian Optometrical Association in drawing up the common form. The undertaking will outline the kinds of services to be provided by participating optometrists and will detail the maximum fee to be charged by the optometrist for a service to which the undertaking relates. Provision will be made for domiciliary visits at the request of the patient. This is most important for those who are perhaps crippled or those who are paraplegics or quadriplegics.

We recognise that special arrangements may be necessary for people in isolated areas. I have mentioned the rather special services given by optometrists in outlying areas of Australia. Higher charges for such services may necessitate higher reimbursement to the optometrist. The Bill, by clause 18, empowers the Minister for Social Security to make special arrangements in these cases. The Bill is designed to extend to all Australians an improved system of health benefits, one for which Australians have been waiting for very many years, virtually for a quarter of a century. We believe that health services should be available to all and not just to those who can afford to buy such services. The lack of provision of benefits for optometrical consultations has been a real deficiency in health care. Not the least of the sufferers has been the children of Australia. I believe that this new arrangement will benefit both patients and services available. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Mr Speaker-

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-There are a number of interesting aspects to the inclusion of optometrical benefits in the health insurance scheme. In commenting on some aspects of the Bill, first of all I congratulate the Government on the inclusion of optometrical benefits, because this is a long overdue-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 59

NOES: 54

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Further to the brief comments I was allowed to make earlier when I was saying that I agreed with the inclusion of the optometrical benefits-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 54

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2806

VICTORIA GRANT (SEYMOUR FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April on motion by Mr Les Johnson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– I rise to support the Victorian Grant (Seymour Flood Mitigation) Bill and in doing so to present the attitude of the Opposition towards it. I personally have some disappointment about the action of the Prime Minster (Mr Whitlam) when he visited Seymour to look at the flood area, and I will raise that point later. The Bill provides $200,000 of Australian Government funds to assist in meeting a total expenditure of $500,000 to make Seymour virtually or hopefully safe from future flood problems associated with Whitehead’s Creek. When Whitehead’s Creek flooded it caused a tremendous amount of damage in the Seymour area. The floodwaters came out of the hills late at night and were quite unexpected. They came from a little creek that most people thought they would never see flooded to that extent. The flood hit the town very early in the morning and it was very fortunate that there was not a great loss of life. Unfortunately, there was a small loss of life. Any loss of life in a flood is tragic loss of life in any national disaster is tragic.

I must congratulate the Victorian State Government and the Federal Government on their prompt action at the time in providing the ready assistance so badly needed at a time of extreme disaster. Units of the Australian Army situated at Puckapunyal rushed in and provided tremendous assistance at the time of that flood and also at the time of a later flood from the Goulburn River. Getting back to the provisions of the Bill, let me say that when the Prime Minister visited Seymour at the time of the flood he told the people that they would not lose; that the Federal Government would step in and assist the State Government on a dollar for dollar basis. I mention this because the people at Seymour are faced now with the enormous problem of finding $50,000. If the honourable members stop and think of the population of the town of Seymour, which is in the vicinity of 4,000, they will realise that it is an enormous task for the local shire council to raise anything like $5,000, let alone $50,000, to cover the difference between the amount provided and the amount required to carry out this all-important work.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is complete nonsense.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The total cost of the job is $500,000, as explained in the second reading speech. The Australian Government is to provide 40 per cent of that cost-that is, $200,000-and the State Government is providing $250,000. Unfortunately the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson), who is at the table always seems to lack the ability to add up. He says that what I say is utter nonsense. I ask him: From where does he think the extra $50,000 will come? Perhaps it will come out of funds provided for the Regional Employment Development scheme or from the Grants Commission. I suggest that these are 2 areas in which the Government might act to make up the difference.

However, let us get back to the facts of the situation. The Prime Minister is quoted in a Press statement dated 16 May 1974 as follows:

Mr Whitlam went on to say that in a letter to all Premiers dated February 27th he had outlined the arrangements for financial assistance from the Australian Government to the States in the event of natural disasters. Mr Whitiam said that the offer which he made in that letter applied in the case of the current Victorian floods. The offer to Victoria includes financial assistance on a dollar for dollar basis.

The Prime Minister made the statement. I did not make that statement. The Opposition did not make it. The Australian Government, through the Prime Minister, made an offer of dollar for dollar assistance with the State governments. In my book this means that the Australian Government has to provide $250,000 for the Seymour area instead of expecting the poor unfortunate people of Seymour who have suffered 2 floods in something like 2 years to make up the difference. They have suffered tremendous loss of property and there has been loss of life. As most people are aware, it does not matter how well they are covered by those very able insurance companies which provide the background of replacement. The people do not always receive the total amount of reimbursement to cover the losses they suffer. Yet, whilst this Government proposes to enter the field of insurance to assist, it cannot adequately provide and keep its promise of dollar for dollar assistance in this area. The Minister at the table said before that what I said was nonsense. Perhaps he will explain afterwards where the people will obtain this extra $50,000.

I am hopeful that the people of Seymour will receive word from the Prime Minister that his promise of dollar for dollar assistance with the State Government will be honoured. I am hopeful that if the Australian Government cannot see its way clear under this Bill or an amended Bill to provide the extra $50,000- in other words, the 50 per cent of the total amount required- it will provide a special grant through perhaps the Grants Commission or will provide assistance through the RED scheme. It could quite easily use the money allocated for this scheme because much labour will be involved at the headworks of Whitehead’s Creek. I hope that the Australian Government will provide that extra $50,000. I ask the Prime Minister, through the Minister for Housing and Construction, to honour his promise. I ask the Australian Government to make sure that it provides 50 per cent- not 40 per cent -of the amount required. I ask this on behalf of the people of Seymour. I have expressed the gratitude of the people of Seymour for the ready assistance in ail the areas necessary at the time of this disaster. No doubt they were entitled to expect that assistance. Nevertheless, they were very gratified to receive it, not only from this Government but also from every other source.

The important thing is that we are now looking at the prevention of a similar disaster happening again. It is no good saying that it is simply a matter of rectifying the position by the people of Seymour paying for it because, unless something is done, that is ultimately what will happen. What good is it if the people of Seymour are expected to provide the $50,000? If that is the case, the money they receive from the Grants Commission virtually goes out the window. Possibly, they will have to use their rate money to provide the difference in the funds. There is just no way that the Seymour Shire Council will find this money. It is obvious that the State Government will have to carry the debt. If it does that, it means that the State Government will carry 60 per cent of the deal because the Australian Government will be providing only 40 per cent. I do not believe that this was in the Prime Minister’s mind when he made the statement as reported in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of Sunday, 18 May 1974. According to the report the Prime Minister said:

  1. . immediate steps would have to be taken to stop further floods hitting the town.

He said the reshaping of the Federal Government’s procedures on floods and compensation would speed up the process.

He said that back in May 1974. The process has not been speeded up. I only hope that this relief will be speeded up, that the Government looks at its promise made through the Prime Minister and makes available 50 per cent- $250,000- of the money required. In speaking to this Bill, I point out in fairness that a Liberal-National Country Party Government intends to take proper steps to see that there is adequate protection in the case of flooding when it is returned to office in the very near future. The water and soil conservation section of the Opposition’s policy, released some time ago, states:

The liberal-Country Parties-

It is now the Liberal-National Country Parties- advocate establishment of a National Water and Soil Conservation Fund from which allocations will be made to the States annually for the following purposes.

Among those purposes is flood mitigation and flood prevention. Under this scheme, of course, money will be provided to try to stop flooding in those areas that are subject to such disasters. Furthermore the Liberal-National Country Parties when in Government, which will be very soon, will look at disasters on a proper basis. I believe that funds should be made available on a dollar-for-dollar basis so that the people who suffer hardships will not be subjected to added pressures of trying to find funds. I repeat that the

Australian Government must make sure that the promise given by the Prime Minister is carried out. It must provide support to the Victorian State Govemment on a dollar-for-dollar basis in respect of the $500,000 which is required for work to be carried out on the headworks at Whitehead’s Creek. The people of Seymour will be much happier in their minds when the Australian Government’s promise is fulfilled. They will be happy to know that their town and shire will not be bankrupt. I hope that somewhere along the track someone on the Government side will take the necessary steps to provide adequate cover and to carry out the real promises that were made by the Prime Minister in relation to this Bill. I repeat that the Opposition must, of course, support the Bill because it is important that the State Government should receive even the $200,000 to be made available under this legislation so that work can proceed, even if the State Government has to be tagged with the responsibility of providing the balance, which unfortunately Seymour has no hope of paying.

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

-Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Les Johnson) proposed:

That the Bill be how read a third time.

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

-Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) has just spoken to this Bill. He pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) misled -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2809

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May on motion by MrBeazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

- Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the States Grants (Universities) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 2 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-In this debate the House is considering the States Grants (Universities) Bill and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill. Those Bills are similar in kind. The former- the one dealing with universitiesprovides for an additional $104m to be made available in respect of the 1973-75 triennium to universities and affiliated residential colleges. The latter provides for an additional $83m to be made available in respect of the 1973-75 triennium to colleges of advanced education and approved non-government teachers colleges. At first sight it may appear to the House that we have here a substantial subvention of additional funds in respect of the tertiary level of education, but nothing is further from the truth. All that this legislation does- with the exception of some minor programs which, though significant in themselves, are relatively small in import when taken as a part of the whole- is simply bring up to date in dollar terms the real support that was promised to the universities and the colleges of advanced education at the commencement of this triennium. The amounts have been adjusted only until 31 December 1974.

In making those adjustments account has been taken of changing costs in operating colleges of advanced education and universities, and the amounts provided for the years 1974 and 1975 have been varied. It is noteworthy that the amounts show a rapid increase in money terms. If we look at the figures applicable for the 1974 and 1975 years, after all adjustments had been made up to the end of 1973 when the figures were varied to take account of the Commonwealth taking over the total responsibility for tertiary education, we find that at that time the program in respect of universities for the 1974 year was forecast at $266,537,000, and for 1975 it was forecast at $291,252,000. Last year a similar Bill increased the provision for 1974 by 6.9 per cent, and for 1975 by 7.4 per cent. This year these Bills increase the amounts by a further 7.8 per cent in respect of the 1974 year, and by a massive 21 per cent for the 1975 year. I say massive’ because it is a large increase in money terms. There is no change in real terms.

All these Bills do is demonstrate how in this field, as in many others, the Government is on a treadwheel of inflation which causes it to introduce Bills which need to vary the money value of the support given, without changing the real value. So often across the whole range of this Government’s support for various programs, whether they are in the field of education or in other fields, we hear spokesmen and apologists for the Labor Government claiming substantial increases in support of those programs. The increases referred to are increases in money terms, and money terms alone. The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), in his second reading speech, did not on this occasion seek to disguise the fact that all this Bill was doing was taking account of the inflationary pressures on the budgets of universities and colleges of advanced education. He said to the House that as a consequence of the application of the various indices used to determine the amount that is now appropriate to preserve the real value of the grants approved at the beginning of the triennium, all this Bill was doing was adjusting to take account of inflation.

It is interesting to note, too, that the problem of inflation was referred to by the Australian Universities Commission in its fifth report. It drew attention to the difficulties that are faced by universities. No doubt the Commission on Advanced Education would have had similar views on the difficulties of the system of triennial financing in times of inflation. The way in which this problem has been handled has been for the various commissions to indicate their recom.medations in money terms applicable to a particular period- normally the year immediately preceding the first year of the triennium. Although on occasions they build in an inflation factor, the amount of the inflation factor so built in is of very small consequence because the commissions have adopted the view that each year the amounts applicable to the 3 periods in the triennium should be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances.

The amounts approved for expenditure are raised by States grants legislation of the type that we are now considering. Previously, of course, the Commonwealth did not make these major changes in the amounts available. It was left to the universities and to the States. But now that the Commonwealth has taken full responsibility for the financing of universities and colleges of advanced education, and by the abolition of fees has removed the mechanism that they then used in order to cope with the inflationary pressures on their cost structures, this Government has recognised the need for regular review of the amounts provided to these bodies from time to time.

It is interesting to note too that the adjustments that are being made by this Bill relate only to the period ended 3 1 December 1974. So these Bills are designed to give approval to the amounts that will enable these bodies to fund expenditure already outlaid in respect of the 1974 year. They are also in the form of an authorisation of anticipated expenditure based upon the figures applicable as at 31 December 1974. So before the trienniumn is over there will be further Bills of this nature to authorise additional funds to be made available to universities and colleges of advanced education with particular reference to the 1975 year, because there will be the additional costs that those bodies so funded will have to meet as a consequence of wage and salary increases and other cost rises.

The adjustments that have been made in this Bill are as a consequence of the application of a series of indices which the Universities Commission uses and which the Commission dealing with colleges of advanced education also adopts. There are 3 components which have been recognised. Firstly, there is a component that relates to academic salaries; secondly, there is another component dealing with non-academic salaries and wages, and thirdly, there is an element dealing with non salary costs. The index that is applied differs accordingly to the category applicable. In the case of academic salaries, since 1964 supplementary grants have been provided to the universities to reimburse them for the cost increases in academic salaries by governments on the recommendation of special inquiries established by the Australian Government. It is understood that this process continues.

In the case of non academic salaries, the index used is one based upon movements in a national index that relates to the salaries of positions of a similar type and nature in the Australian Public Service. The non-salary costs are determined by a series of indices supplies by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and university sources dealing with certain wages, others dealing with the costs of building construction and another dealing with costs relating to equipment.

It is interesting to note also that in relation to academic salaries, using as a base year the December quarter of 1971 as 100, the increase up to 31 December 1974 is of the order of 158.5. In the case of non-academic salaries, the increase is even higher- from 100 to 161.6. However, non-salary costs have not escalated as much, the rise being only from 100 to 131.5. In the case of equipment, the rise has been from 100 to 121.9. In building costs, as one might expect, the increase has been from 102.7 to 155. 1. All these figures indicate and are evidence of the massive degree of inflation that is taking place in the Australian economy at present. As a consequence, it becomes necessary for the Government from time to time, in order to maintain the existing programs in the field of tertiary education, to seek additional money. The public should not be misled into thinking for one moment that an additional cent in real terms is being spent on education.

On previous occasions, when these sorts of increases arose it often was suggested that the mechanism was used as a means of transferring resources from the States to the Commonwealth Government, because previously the States or the universities themselves were obligated to make up the difference. As wages and salaries were raised, so the liabilities of the States and the universities themselves were increased. But the principal beneficiary, as a result of the progressive tax rate scale, was the Commonwealth Government. That process is still continuing, but in a different way. As inflation has continued, as a result of the progressive tax rate scale all those who will benefit from the increased salaries that will be paid as a consequence of the allocation of these funds will find not only that their marginal rate of tax will increase but also that the average rate of tax that they pay on their total income will increase. So, in real terms, the funds available on a post-tax basis to those who will benefit directly or indirectly because of the ability of universities and colleges of advanced education to pay higher salaries in fact will mean that those persons will find that they are not any better off and in many instances are worse off.

I mentioned that the Bills make provision for some interesting and, in themselves, significant additions. Again I refer to the fact that, although they are conditions, taken as part of the whole they are very small in percentage terms. However, I should mention the principle ones amongst them. There are provisions in the Bills for the further funding of the Deakin University at Geelong, for the establishment of a central office of the State College of Victoria, for the establishment of diploma courses in welfare studies at one or two colleges of advanced education and for the further expansion of the study centre of the Albury-Wodonga centre of the Riverina College of Advanced Education. These are but small additions in Bills which are designed primarily to provide funds simply because the estimates originally contained in the legislation that was passed some 12 months ago again have been proven to be inapplicable because inflation continues to rage in Australia.

As inflation moves ahead more quickly the universities and colleges of advanced education continue to be disadvantaged to some degree because of the time lag in die approval of the additional funds. Tonight the House is considering Bills which approve funds in respect of the year ended 31 December 1974. In view of the accelerating rate of inflation and the additional amount that has to be provided by this sort of legislation which authorises payments to the universities and colleges of advanced education, one wonders how in the meantime they have financed the short fall. It may well be that they have borrowed money or had some form of advance in terms of receiving this year some 1975 money which they have used to pay 1974 liabilities. One cannot help but wonder whether in some circumstances the universities and colleges have been forced to maintain an establishment under strength. As has occurred on previous occasions, have they not filled positions that are part of their establishment as recognised by the Universities Commission and the Commission on Colleges of Advanced Education? Have they failed to fill them because funds would not become available?

Mr Beazley:

-Salaries go by arbitration decisions, not by some movement of the cost price index. I mean that the decisions of the judge set the period. If a person’s salary lags behind, he loses, but that does not mean that the university has not been paying bis salary.

Mr WILSON:

-The Minister for Education again interjects. Of course it is recognised that the salaries are adjusted by the appropriate awards, but in the past, universities and colleges which have not had the funds to meet the increased salaries for the whole of their staff, on occasions have kept their staff at lower levels than the recognised establishment or the establishment approved by the Universities Commission. Apparently this is a tendency which is continuing. Here, towards the end of May 1975, substantial sums of money are being approved in respect of expenditure incurred by the universities for the year ended 3 1 December 1 974.

The question I wish to ask is: Whilst inflation continues and the time lag causes the univeristies to run up excessive liabilities in respect of commitments that they must meet because the awards are determined by tribunals that obligate the universities to pay higher salaries, how are the universities funding the shortfall? Are they, in fact, funding it by cutting down on staff appointments, or are they funding it through overdraft facilities? If so, is there provision in the legislation which enables the interest liabilities of the university to be covered by support from the Commonwealth Government which itself is largely responsible for the rapid escalation of costs within the university field. This is a matter which could be of serious concern to the adequacy of the staffing of universities, whether it be in the field of academic staff or in other aspects of university or college of advanced education work.

So, whilst the Opposition supports this legislation, it regrets that because of inflation the amounts contained in these Bills are necessarily so high. We support the concept that the real level of university and college of advanced education provision should be maintained. We regret that we have so frequently to support legislation approving more printed paper money to be made available- money that is being made available simply because it is necessary to do so to enable these insititutions to carry on their existing services. It is not a question of providing additional funds, it is a matter in this legislation, of simply giving the universities and colleges of advanced education sufficient funds with which to carry on. The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) made an interesting analogy in his second reading speech in relation to the Bill dealing with State grants for Universities, when he said: the Bill constitutes the equivalent of a. Supply measure for the universities to enable them to sustain their operations.

This is a rather unusual use of the term ‘Supply measure’. Normally a Supply measure, anticipates the future and assumes that the requirements for the future will be similar to those for the period immediately preceding. However, this Bill does more than that. It provides funds for the shortfall in 1974. That is something past and gone. So the Bill is not anticipating the future at all. Insofar as this is a Supply Bill which is authorising the payment of funds in respect of the year ended 3 1 December 1975, it is doing so upon the basis of the costs as calculated in 1974. There is no attempt to calculate the cost of increased salaries and wages which have been awarded so far this year and which will be awarded during the remainder of this year. If the present inflation rate continues we could expect later this year or early next year the introduction of Bills to lift again the provision by amounts of the order of the percentages to which I referred earlier to take account simply of the increased costs without providing an additional cent in real worth for our universities and colleges of advanced education.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-Mr Deputy Speaker, it is now more than 10 years since the Martin Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia laid down the blueprint for tertiary education which is reflected in the Bills under discussion in the House tonight. At the beginning of the 1960s the tertiary sector of Australian education was made up overwhelmingly of the State universities, supplemented with a few dozen tertiary technical institutions. The Martin Committee made the great contribution of looking beyond the universities and the technical institutions, as they were then, to a more diversified arrangement in which the universities took their places beside a new form of tertiary education- the college of advanced education. (Quorum formed) The interest taken in this Parliament in matters of tertiary education is faithfully reflected tonight by the fact that the Government benches are crowded at a time when there are 3- members of the Liberal Party and 4 members of the National Country Party of Australia in the chamber.

I was saying before I was interrupted- as indeed I have been interrupted on the last 3 occasions on which I have spoken in this House by honourable members opposite calling for a quorum- that we owe it to the Martin Committee of the early 1960s that we now have in this country so diversified a system of tertiary education. We have the universities and the colleges of advanced education, and now the teachers colleges which for the first time are autonomous and free of the control of State departments of education, and the technical colleges which for the first time are the subject of assistance from the national government following on the recommendations in the report of the Technical and Further Education Commission. But in taking satisfaction in the diversity of this arrangement, I think the House can well ask itself whether it is not time for a further inquiry into the structure of Australian tertiary education. There is now a widespread questioning in our community whether and how well the structures established on the recommendation of the Martin Committee suit a very different sort of a society a decade further on in our history. I would very much hope that this year, or at the very latest next year, a further inquiry into tertiary education will be established. I have no doubt that the right man is at hand in Professor Peter Karmel who conducted the inquiry into Australian schools at an earlier time.

I hope that in laying down the terms of reference for an inquiry into tertiary education we would not require the committee to look simply into the question of structures. The time is now long overdue for us to redefine the goals which are served by tertiary education. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) in his remarks earlier this evening dwelt at some length on the very great outlay of public money which is absorbed every year by tertiary education. He might have gone on to say something about the very great sums of public money which are lost every year at the tertiary level by students failing courses and by students dropping out of courses. We can legitimately ask ourselves how well the courses at our tertiary institutions are tailored to the needs of the students when there is such a significant failure rate and such a significant rate of drop-out in every one of the institutions concerned. The honourable member for Sturt would know that figures have been taken out on the cost to the community of students who fail and students who drop out.

Mr Chipp:

– It is not all waste, though, surely.

Mr MATHEWS:

-The honourable member for Hotham interjects, correctly enough that it is not all waste. Nevertheless, it can be argued that in a situation in which funds for education are necessarily short and in which priorities have to be assigned the best use is not being made of these things in this way. It is for that reason that I urge the view tonight on the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley)- I know that he is receptive to it- that steps should be taken in the very near future to get a further inquiry into tertiary education off the ground. One of the features of the present system, which I suppose is particularly disturbing, is the proliferation in the tertiary sphere of controlling bodies which yet lack any single body for the purposes of co-ordination. We have a Universities Commission; we have an Advanced Education Commission; we have a Technical and Further Education Commission; and we have that curious hybrid body in my own State- the State College of Victoria- which exercises overall responsibility for teacher education, for the autonomous teachers colleges. Again I think the time is long overdue for us to have a single tertiary commission.

Debate interrupted.

page 2814

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Daly:

– I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2814

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1975

Debate resumed.

Mr MATHEWS:

– A single tertiary commission should be established so that the various threads of responsibility in the field could be drawn together, so that the goals could be adequately served, so that admission policies could be co-ordinated and so that greater ordering on a basis of priorities could be brought to bear on the funding process. There is another matter into which I think an inquiry into tertiary education could properly address itself and that is the question as to whether our children, our young people, should be moving directly from high schools, the secondary stage of their education, to the tertiary stage. It has been one of the more healthy developments in the education system in recent years that increasingly our young people choose to take a year off before taking up their university or college of advanced education course. I wonder whether that arrangement should not be fostered rather than discouraged, as is the case at present. I find that the university authorities in particular seem to regard the deferral of a course- that is, where a boy or girl takes up a university place won in the quota battle only after a year away at some other occupation- as the conferring of a favour, and this is rather a pity. The advantage that students would take of their tertiary education would be infinitely greater if this year away from education, this year outside the formal framework of education became the rule rather than the exception as it is at present.

Many of us can think back to the experience of sevicemen who returned to tertiary education after the Second World War and can recall how infinitely greater was the advantage that those men and women took of their university places at the more mature age at which they were able to take them up. I think it is a pity that we did not learn something from that experience that we could have expressed in our institutional arrangements for tertiary education. One of the many undesirable effects of the quota system at the tertiary level, perhaps the most undesirable effect of all, has been the way it has militated against the mature age student wanting to come back to undertake further education. (Quorum formed) I am not sure what it is -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honourable gentleman is aware that he cannot move that motion.

Mr Sinclair:

– I can try.

Mr Cope:

– Only a Minister can move that motion.

Mr Daly:

– He has great dreams.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members will resume their seats. I call the honourable member for Casey.

Mr MATHEWS:

– When I was interrupted by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) and subsequently by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair), both of whom seem to have something against the subject of tertiary education, I was advocating that the arrangements under which young people take a year off between secondary education and tertiary education should be extended and that it should be made easier for the secondary exit student to take a year off before going on to a university or a college of advanced education. One of the most regrettable effects of the quota system at the tertiary level has been the way in which it has discouraged mature age students from coming back into the tertiary system. I would hope that, when the Government’s inquiry into tertiary education is established, as it should be in the near future, one of the matters with which it will concern itself is facilitating the concept of continuing education by making it possible for people who move outside the formal education system for any period that they may feel appropriate to come back into that system without disadvantage at a subsequent stage. If we can take this step, if we can make sure that the average age and with it the overall maturity of tertiary students are successively raised, I believe we will get much greater advantage taken of the system by the individuals concerned and a much greater return on the investment which, as the honourable member for Sturt has pointed out tonight, increases every year.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-Mr Speaker, I move-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

PAIRS

Everingham, D. N. Killen, D.J.

Cairns, J. F. Snedden, B.M.

Sherry, R.H. Millar, P. C.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses I and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Salary rates).

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-This clause is designed to provide -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Grant for course in social work.)

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-Mr Chairman

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put: The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 59

NOES: 51

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Progress reported.

page 2816

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr LUSHER (Hume) (ll.O)-I rise in the chamber tonight - Motion ( by Mr Daly ) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 52

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

page 2818

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Intiation (Question No. 670)

Mr Garland:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it the aim of the Government to reduce the inflation rate, and is the present rate of inflation far too high.
  2. What reasons have been given by his predecessor for the present rate of inflation, and on what dates and occasions were those reasons, all, or in part, given.
  3. By what measures, and on what dates, has the Government taken action to reduce the rate of inflation, as referred to in Her Majesty The Queen’s Opening Speech in 1974 written by the Government.
  4. When were such anti-inflationary measures most recently and cogently referred to.
  5. When comparing Australia’s rate of inflation with that of other OECD countries, does the Government agree that some allowance should be made for the enormous increase in oil import costs to those countries.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Numerous statements have been made by Ministers on the causes of the present rate in inflation; it would not be practicable to refer to them all. Two of the more recent of my own speeches on this subject were the address I gave to the Federal Conference of the ALP in February and my speech to the House on IS April 1975.
  3. The Government has taken many actions to combat inflation since it assumed office in December 1972; see also the statements referred to in the answer to part (2) of this question.
  4. My most recent comprehensive speech on this subject was to the House on 15 April 1975.
  5. Yes, and to other particular and general factors as well.

Regional Employment Development Scheme: Kalgoorlie Electorate (Question No. 1971)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many and which local authorities or other bodies, within the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie, have applied for assistance under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. ) How many of those applications were successful.
  3. How many persons were placed in employment as a result.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Twenty-five local authorities or other bodies, within the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie, have applied for assistance under the Regional Employment Development Scheme and they are as follows:

Agricultural Protection Board.

Department of Agriculture. Broome Shire Council. Carnarvon Shire Council. Cue Shire Council. Derby Sportsmen’s Club. Geraldton Town Council. Geraldton Cemetery Board. Greenough Shire CouncilHall ‘s Creek Shire Council. Irwin Shire Council. Kimberley Research Station. La Grange Mission. Mingenew Shire Council. Mt Magnet Shire Council. Mowanjum Mission Incorporated. Mullewa Shire Council. Northampton Shire Council. Port Hedland Shire Council. Public Works Department. Shark Bay Shire Council. West Kimberley Shire Council. East Kimberley Shire Council. Meekatharra Youth and Social Centre. Pilbara Vermin Advisory Committee.

  1. A total of 87 out of 103 applications were successful.
  2. A total of 538 jobs were created for unemployed persons.

Public Service Board: Appointments on Contract Basis (Question No. 2165)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service, upon notice:

Further to question No. 1690 concerning the employment of persons on a contract basis, does the Public Service Board intend to issue instructions to departments and statutory authorities advising on methods to be adopted in employing people on contracts; if not, will he discuss with the Chairman of the Public Service Board the need for such instructions to be issued.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Public Service Board has provided the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:

The engagement of persons to provide services on a non permanent short-term basis to the Australian Government has been achieved by:

The arrangement of contracts for services;

Use of the temporary employment and exemption provisions of the Public Service Act.

Treasury Direction 31/55 provides that departments wishing to engage management consultants must confer with the Public Service Board before doing so. The Board’s 1974 Annual Report outlines the present arrangements at page 45.

Other consultancy arrangements have been subject to related procedures since last year.

Treasury Regulations and Directions also contain provisions concerning the procurement of various services which could involve contractual arrangements with individuals (e.g., Treasury Regulations 5 1 to 52aa).

There is no specific provision in the Public Service Act for the engagement or appointment of persons on a contract basis. Persons are appointed as officers until they reach the statutory retiring age, subject to termination for cause and by due process as specified in the Act.

Under section 82 of the Act temporary employees are normally restricted to a one year term of employment. However, under section 8a of the Act, the Governor-General may exempt officers or employees from the provisions of the Act and Regulations to enable the engagement of temporary employees for a longer term, fixed or otherwise.

As mentioned in the Prime Minister’s reply on 5 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4825) publicity is given in the Public Service Board ‘s Annual Reports to the manner in which these provisions can be used by departments to secure the services of specially qualified individuals on a non-career basis, or to perform tasks of an isolated short-term nature.

In general the exemption provisions are well understood and the Board does not consider it necessary to issue additional instructions to departments or statutory authorities on these matters.

I consider that, in the circumstances, this is a matter which can be left to the discretion of the Puublic Service Board.

Research on Commodity Yields (Question No. 2281)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Exampless of Secrecy’, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed Item 10- Research on commodity yields, farm costs and returns.
  3. ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. I refer the honourable member to the comments in Part (3) of the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 2243, 13 May 1975 (Hansard, page 2198). In addition, a great deal of information regarding agricultural commodity yields, farm costs and returns has been published regularly prior to and since 1972. Two main sources of such information are the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
  3. Refer to answer to (3) above.

Canberra: Transport Plan (Question No. 2360)

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

Has he taken part in discussions that have take place between the National Capital Development Commission and the Minister for the Capital Territory over the development of a comprehensive transport plan for Canberra.

If so, what is his attitude to Canberra’s future transport needs.

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

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 support the transport policies being developed jointly by the Department of the Capital Territory and the NCDC aimed at providing an efficient public transport system for Canberra.

Consumer Groups (Question No. 2367)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Further to the answer to question No. 1760 in which his predecessor provided a list of 44 consumer groups with which the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards has had continuous liaison, is this an exhaustive list of consumer groups with whom the Commission has had liaison; if not, how were the groups listed chosen for liaison, and what are the names of the other groups with whom the Commission has liaised.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The list of consumer groups having continuous liaison with the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards, that was provided by my predecessor in office in answer to the right honourable member’s earlier question, was an exhaustive list.

Australian Capital Territory Health Commission Building: Tenants (Question No. 2374)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who will be the tenants of the proposed A.C.T. Health Commission building.
  2. Will any elements of Medibank be housed in this building.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. The proposed Capital Territory Health Commission will occupy the building as a headquarters and will provide clinical facilities and a health centre on the ground and first floors. Some suites may be available for lease for medical/ dental purposes.
  2. No plans for accommodating elements of Medibank in the building exist at present, but any administrative elements of the Medibank service which the Capital Territory Health Commission may be expected to handle for the A.C.T. may be housed in the building.

Canberra Hospital Accommodation (Question No. 2388)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

How many (a) public, (b) intermediate and (c) private ward beds were there in each hospital in Canberra on (i) 1 April 1975 and (ii) 1 October 1974.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

Beds in the two public hospitals in the A.C.T. and the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Home are classified as General or Private. A General bed is one in a ward of up to six beds with a charge equivalent to N.S.W. public ward charge; a private bed is one in a single room with a charge equivalent to N.S.W. private ward charge. Private beds are made available to patients at public ward charge, when this is medically desirable.

The total number of beds by type on 1 October 1974 and 1 April 1 973 was as follows:

There is one private hospital in Canberra which had 46 beds at both dates.

Colleges of Advanced Education: Enrolments (Question No. 565)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of all colleges of advanced education in Australia indicating:

their enrolment in each of the last 5 years and

b ) the expected enrolment in each of the next 5 years.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. actual enrolments for 1970-74 attached
  2. I am unable, at the present time, to provide estimates of future enrolments due to the developing nature of the advanced education system. However, further information up to 1978 will be available when the Commission on Advanced Education’s Fourth Report is tabled later this year.

Notes

  1. College entered the advanced education system as a result of the ‘Report of the Special Committee on Teacher Education’, in 1973.
  2. College became part of the New South Wales College of Paramedical Studies in 1973.
  3. College commenced operation in 1 974.
  4. College became part of the Lincoln Institute.
  5. College commenced in 1 973.
  6. College ceased to be part of the advanced education system in 1973.
  7. College amalgamated with the Western Australian Institute of Technology.
  8. College became part of Torrens College of Advanced Education.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Scripts (Question No. 2435)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the average delay in the processing of pharmaceutical benefit scripts in each State.
  2. In which States is the delay (a) growing or (b) being reduced.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. The average number of days taken to process claims lodged in February 1 975 were:
  1. (a) and (b) The average number of days taken to process claims in February 1975 shows an increase in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania and a decrease in the other States. Although comparative figures are not yet available for March and April 1975, other information indicates that the time taken to process claims in Victoria and Tasmania is being reduced.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Scripts (Question No. 2436)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In which States is the progress or initial payment system operating for the payment of pharmaceutical benefit scripts.
  2. What percentage of pharmacists in each of these States uses the arrangement.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. New South Wales
  2. January 1975-72.14%. February 1975-74.09%. March 1975-72.59%.

National Biological Standards Laboratory (Question No. 2464)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it the intention of the Government to move the National Biological Standards Laboratory to Geelong; if so, when.
  2. In how many buildings in the A.C.T. and Queanbeyan are the various segments of the Laboratory presently located.
  3. Does the Government agree that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and that some of the offices are overcrowded and sub-standard.
  4. When will satisfactory centralised accommodation be provided in Canberra for this organisation.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. No decision has been reached regarding the possible transfer of the National Biological Standards Laboratory to Geelong.
    1. The Administration Section of the Laboratory moved to Queanbeyan on 1 May 1 975.
  2. Yes.
  3. Preliminary design of a laboratory complex to accommodate the N.B.S.L. at Narrabundah in the A.C.T. has been completed. One unit of this complex has been erected and is awaiting final testing. However, the actual location of the complex will now be dependent upon Cabinet decision.

International Wool Secretariat: Funds (Question No. 2474)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the private newsletter entitled Follicle, dated April, Vol. 1 , No. 2.
  2. If so, was there an article questioning the expenditure of or monitoring of International Wool Secretariat funds.
  3. Is it a fact that 70 per cent of the International Wool Secretariat funds being expended in France is on administration costs.
  4. How does the Government and the Australian Wool Industry Conference establish if the funds being allocated to promotion are being spent in the public interest and the best interests of the woolgrowers.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Information available to me indicates that the Branch of the International Wool Secretariat in France spends some 85 per cent of its budget on wool promotion, the remainder being spent on technical services to the textile industry, including quality control for the Woolmark and Woolblendmark schemes and administration. Last northern hemisphere winter, French wool processors contributed the equivalent of $A 150,000 for a wool promotion campaign in conjunction with the IWS and additional to the IWS program. For the coming northern hemisphere winter, the French industry is to contribute $500,000 for a campaign designed and controlled by the IWS and additional to the IWS program.
  4. Annual activity reports and budgets of the IWS and the Australian Wool Corporation in relation to promotion are presented to the Australian Wool Industry Conference personally by the Chairman and senior officials of the IWS and the Corporation. This enables woolgrower representatives to question IWS and Corporation representatives on any aspects of promotional policies and expenditure. Detailed information on the cost and content of the IWS activities, together with similar information for the promotion activities of the Australian Wool Corporation is provided annually to the Government and is available to the Executive Committee of the AWIC. This information is not published as it could be of assistance to the promotion activities of competitor fibre organisations.

Passenger Aircraft: Non-smoking Sections (Question No. 2423)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it considered that there should be more non-smoking rows of seats in large commercial aircraft, such as DC° or 727’s operating in Australia; if so, what action has he taken in the matter.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

I am well aware of the risks to health incurred by smoking tobacco and of the problems and inconvenience caused to non-smokers who are compelled into passive smoking in such public places as aircraft.

My Department has recently written to all major Australian airlines on the particular question of smoking in aircraft. In their replies, all airlines have indicated recognition of the rights of the non-smoker and have clearly indicated that they adopt a very responsible approach to this problem.

Qantas Airways has advised that the current trend is to increase the number of seats for non-smokers , and accordingly on and from 1 May 1975, about one-third of the aircraft has been blocked off for non-smokers, (including a complete Zone in 747B’s).

Following an increase in the demand for non-smoking seats, Ansett Airlines has moved to meet this by providing the following allocation of seating for non-smokers:

TAA has recently increased searing for non-smokers in DC9 aircraft and 727 jets to 27 and 34 respectively, as a result of a survey of customer preference at the time of seat allocation.

Each airline has advised that the matter of allocation of seats for non-smokers is under constant review, depending upon the public demand for them.

I will continue to review the situation regarding smoking in aircraft to ensure that the rights of non-smokers to protect themselves from the health hazards of passive smoking are maintained.

Dried Fruits (Question No. 2420)

Mr Fisher:

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

  1. 1 ) What quantities of each variety of dried fruit were imported into Australia during the last 3 years.
  2. What quantities have been imported during the current year to 1 April 1975.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture had provided the following details obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. Imports (in kilograms) of dried fruit for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 were:
  1. Latest available figures for imports of dried fruits during 1974-75 are for the nine months ended 31 March 1975.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750526_reps_29_hor95/>.