House of Representatives
21 August 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 369

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  2. Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

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 MalcolmFraser.

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. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Reduce the flow of funds to Industry and Commerce from the Private Sector and increase their dependency on Government finance.
  3. Endanger the economy by undermining confidence in Industrial and Commercial Company Shares and by thereby causing share prices to tumble.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MalcolmFraser. 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 the nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Divert a substantial flow of funds from the private to the public sector.
  3. Depress the private sector still further and create unemployment both within the Insurance Industry and elsewhere.

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 Malcolm Fraser and Mr Drury.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament; the humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will enable this and every future Government to control absolutely all private enterprise, both corporate and private.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser and Mr Fisher.

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. 1 ) Further shrink the flow 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 Connolly, Mr McVeigh and Mr Eric Robinson.

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. by Mr Macphee.

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. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Trade unfairly.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

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 Viner.

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 the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That 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 1 974.
  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 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 $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government 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 Dr Edwards, Mr Jarman and Mr Newman.

Petitions received.

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorton, Dr Edwards, Mr Martin and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

To The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the recently announced enormous increases in postal and telecommunication charges will have severe repercussions throughout Australia.

Your petitioners consider that all sectors of the Nation’s economy will be seriously handicapped by rising postal charges and further consider that normal communication between Australian citizens will be seriously hindered.

We request that the decisions to increase postal and telecommunication charges be immediately recinded or the alarming size of the increase moderated. by Mr Newman.

Petition received.

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 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 Cope and Mr Jarman.

Petition received.

Whales

To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Australia respectfully shows:

That we believe the plight of the World’s great whales to be desperate; that we are convinced that they need conservation now, and that exploitation should cease; that we agree with Dr Sidney Holt of F.A.O., who says that a complete re-assessment of all scientific data on whales is needed; and we further submit that substitutes to all whale products are available, and could, with Government encouragement, be made in Australia. We are convinced that the great whales, as a significant part of the World’s Wildlife Heritage, and being on the verge of extinction, now need our complete and wholeheaned protection.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

  1. 1 ) Support a 10 year moratorium on whaling at the 1 975 meeting of the I.W.C.
  2. Support research and development of alternatives to whale products, and encourage production of these products in Australia.
  3. Provide increased funds for research into marine biology.
  4. Force the cessation of whaling operations at Cheynes Beach, W.A.; at the same time providing funds to assist the personnel and facilities of the factory to be otherwise gainfully used, (perhaps in whale research, to further our own and the World ‘s knowledge).
  5. 5 ) Ban the import into this country of all whale products, and all goods containing whale products.
  6. Urge that Australia, as a member of the I.W.C, use all possible influence to encourage the end of whaling throughout the World, and refuse to service ships of all whaling nationsat Australian ports.

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

Petitions received.

South West National Park- Tasmania

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

That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Coxs Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West Rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will funher alienate this wilderness and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Newman and Mr Sherry.

Petitions received.

National Transport System

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

The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that although the weekly pension has recently been increased by $1.50, the high cost of living has effectively made this increase wonhless; consequently additional action by the Government is required.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to establish a nationalised transport system and to make free all transport within Australia to pensioners and all other underprivileged members of the community.

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

Petition received.

Laanecoorie Post Office

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

We strenuously object to the proposal that Laanecoorie Post Office be downgraded to a Postal Agency, resent the slight on our community and protest at the possible reduction and deterioration in services available.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House request the Postal Commission not to downgrade the Laanecoorie Post Office, that the terms “Post Master” and “Post Office” be retained and that the range of services now provided be continued and expanded.

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

Petition received.

Australian Schools Commission Program

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

We strongly protest at the proposal to reduce spending in the Australian Schools Commission Program and are dismayed at the proposal to revert to educational planning on a yearly basis which we feel will severely limit the effectiveness of many vitally important programs in all areas of education.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government not reduce spending on the Australian Schools Commission Program and not revert to education planning on a yearly basis.

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

Petition received.

Taxation Deductions: Land and Water Rates

To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the undersigned persons believe that-

The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

Hansard Subscription Rates

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

That the increased price of the Hansard subscription will place it beyond the financial reach of most people;

That it is basic in a Parliamentary democracy that electors have easy access to records of the debates in their Parliament;

That making Hansard available only to an elite who can afford it is at odds with the concept of open government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce the cost of the Hansard subscription so that it is still available at a moderate price to any interested citizen.

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

Petition 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 Medibank should not be forced upon an unwilling Australian people.

That taxpayers money should not be used to mount an unprecedented propaganda campaign to sell Medibank to the people.

That any system of comprehensive health care in Australia should not be based upon salaried general practitioner or specialist services or allocated hospital staff as proposed by Medibank but upon the principle of freedom of choice of doctor at the surgery and in the hospital.

That private hospitals should be supported and maintained as a viable, independent and necessary part of national hospital service.

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

Petition received.

Leonid Plyushch

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:

We verily believe that Leonid Plyushch has been held as a political prisoner at Dnepropetrovsk Special Psychiatric Hospital since15 July 1973 and he is not in any way physically or mentally ill.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government investigate through diplomatic sources the illegal detention of Leonid Plyushch in the Soviet Union.

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

Petition received.

Education Funds

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth that-

We the undersigned teachers of Keon Park Technical School call on the Australian Government to:

  1. Maintain funding of the Education system in line with the recommendations of the Australian Schools Commission.
  2. That funding of the education system should be continued on a triennial basis to ensure efficient budgeting and disbursement of educational funds.

We believe that failure to do so will result in-

More portable classrooms

A higher student teacher ratio

Inadequate equipment in schools

Fewer educational opportunities for the disadvantaged members of the community. In particular migrants and those who suffer specific learning difficulties.

Your petitioners most humbly pray therefore that the Australian Government will take immediate steps to ensure that education will be adequately funded and this funding be made on a triennial basis.

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

Petition received.

Increased Freight and Passenger Charges, Tasmania

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the people of Launceston sheweth that your Petitioners desire- the immediate revoking of your Governments decision to increase the incoming freight and passenger service charges to the State of Tasmania per the Australian National Line vessels by 40 per cent, because-

This decision can have nothing but disastrous effects to an island state so dependent upon shipping for its goods, and tourism to bolster the economy. by Mr Newman.

Petitions received.

Tax Valuation of Wine Stocks

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

We, the undersigned, being residents of Australia, over the age of 18 years, and consumers of Australian wines, express our concern that the sudden and huge increase in tax valuation of wine stocks held by winemakers will cause unnecessary price increases and scarcities.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government relieve the Wine Industry of this burden and so avoid any harm to our peaceful and economic enjoyment of these beverages.

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

Petition received.

Radio 2JJ

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned students of Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That many areas of the Sydney region are inadequately serviced with access to broadcasts of ABC radio stauon 2JJ by virtue of the transmitting equipment used by that station being not powerful enough for good quality reception in some areas, or of any reception in others.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will take all possible action to bring this matter to the attention of the Government, that by legislation, regulation or administrative fiat the station may be provided with the necessary facilities to adequately service the whole Sydney region.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Scheme

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

That the undersigned, as well as many Australian students most strongly agree with the changes proposed to the tertiary education scheme in the submission to the Committee to review the scheme presented by the Australian Union of Students, and see the following specific changes as being immediately necessary:-

  1. An immediate increase in the maximum away from home and independence rates from the present $32 per week to $49 per week, as indicated in the 1974 joint Department of Education and AUS survey of student cost and expenditure.
  2. Indexation of the allowance according to moves in the Consumer Price Index weighted for particular student costs;
  3. Abolition of the present complex academic requirements preventing financially needy students from obtaining benefits on grounds of their academic standings and replacing them with one year’s automatic grace for students who fail or transfer.
  4. Abolition of the pernicious regulations which prevents students who are less than 2 1 and living away from home from receiving the away-from-home rate (except under three limited conditions).
  5. Increase in the allowance for dependent spouse from $5 to $17 per week.
  6. Efficient administration of the scheme.

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

Petition received.

page 373

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

-Yesterday the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) raised a matter in the House relating to privilege and I undertook to give a ruling on it at the earliest time, after having made a judgment on whether the matter is of such significance that it should receive precedence over other business of the House. The Leader of the House raised the matter, feeling that the articles represented an attack on honourable members and was a grave reflection on the House itself. These indignities are referred to in May’s Parliamentary Practice on page 143. However, the only pertinent references which I have been able to find in the articles are:

Politicians and public servants are behaving like a lot of spoiled brats because they have been told they can no longer travel first class when they go by air. and- (Politicians and senior public servants) ‘are clearly more concerned about pampering their own egos than they are about eliminating wasteful expenditure’.

Whilst these statements are unwarranted, extravagant and to be deprecated, in the context of Press reporting these days I doubt whether they are of such a serious nature as to warrant action by this House.

Turning now to the publication of an alleged statement by the Leader of the House- a statement which the Leader describes as false- I think the House would agree that such wilful publication is damaging to the integrity of the person concerned and constitutes a serious infringement of his rights. Because it is not concerned with the actual business of the House, I feel that the publication by the newspapers of such a report cannot be brought within the ambit of parliamentary privilege, but I am sure all honourable members would condemn this type of article. In the circumstances I am of opinion that the matter raised should not be accorded precedence over other business.

page 373

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 373

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT TO THE AUSTRALIAN HOUSING CORPORATION

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that on Tuesday two of his Ministers were asked an almost identical question on the undertaking given to the Returned Services League that there would be an RSL nominee on the board of the Australian Housing Corporation? Is he aware that Senator Cavanagh said, and I quote from Hansard.

I believe an undertaking was given by a previous Minister that there would be a representative of the RSL on such a body.

The Minister for Urban and Regional Development said:

At no time was there any comment by the Government-

Again, I am quoting from Hansard -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not in order in quoting from Hansard. I suggest he refer to what the Ministers said.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I am sorry. The Minister said that at no time was there any commitment by the Government to the RSL. I ask the Prime Minister Which Minister was correct? Will the Prime Minister please ensure in future that we get the same answer from his Ministers, even if it is the wrong one?

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

– I did hear my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development answer a question on this matter. I was not aware of a question having been asked of Senator Cavanagh on it. I do remember that when the Australian Housing Corporation Bill was being handled by the previous Minister for Housing and Construction he made a statement on this matter in the House. I have had a look at correspondence between him and the National Secretary of the RSL. The correspondence referred to a servicemen’s consultative and advisory committee. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development, who now has responsibility for the Australian Housing Corporation, has also under consideration the appointment of consultative panels or a consultative panel for the Corporation. The matter came to my notice when the National Secretary of the Returned Services League wrote to me on 18 June. I wrote back to him on 15 July. He sent a letter of appreciation for my reply on 21 July. I think that it might help honourable gentlemen if I ask for leave to have the letter I wrote to the National Secretary of the RSL incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- 15 July 1975

Dear Mr Keys,

Thank you for your letter of 18 June 1975 concerning appointments to the Board of the Australian Housing Corporation. I very much regret any misunderstanding which may have arisen over this matter.

At the outset, I can assure you that the fact that a representative of the Returned Services League has not been appointed to the Board of the Corporation in no way involves any diminution in the respect in which the Government holds the Returned Services League and the many Australians it represents.

As you pointed out in your letter, there has been a historic link between the RSL and the Defence Services Homes Division. You may be assured that considerable importance is attached to maintenance and development of the Defence Services Homes Scheme as an integral and major part of the task of the Corporation. I believe that the housing benefits which have been introduced by my government under the Defence Service Homes Scheme since December 1972, are indicative of the importance that the Australian Government attaches to this aspect of its policy initiatives.

I understand that it is the intention of my colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, to set up a consultative panel or panels representing the special interest groups affected by the Corporation’s activities and this matter is currently under consideration by the Corporation. I feel sure that my colleague will wish to consult the League as a matter of priority.

While I have not been able to meet the specific request you have put to me, I should mention that the legislation specifies the circumstances in which a casual vacancy in the Corporation can arise and that in such an event the question of representation by the RSL would again be examined.

I am attaching for your information a copy of a statement outlining benefits which the Australian Government has provided to housing for servicemen and ex-servicemen since December 1972.

Yours sincerely,

  1. G. WHITLAM

Mr A. G. W. Keys, O.B.E., M.C.,

National Secretary,

The Returned Services League of Australia,

P.O. Box 303,

page 374

CANBERRA CITY, A.C.T. 2601

page 374

THE DEFENCE SERVICE HOME SCHEME

page 374

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SCHEME SINCE DECEMBER 1972

One of the first steps taken after the Labor Government came to office in December 1972 was to carry out a comprehensive review of the then War Service Homes Scheme. The major changes which were made following this review were the most significant since the enactment of the original legislation in 1918. A further comprehensive review was made prior to the 1974-75 Budget and it was decided to make a number of additional major changes to improve the borrowing arrangements and scope of the Scheme. The following is a summary of the changes which have been implemented since 2 December 1972:

Extension of Eligibility

The categories of persons eligible for benefits under the Defence Service Homes Scheme were extended to include: .

  1. Members of the Forces on continuous full-time service on or after 7 December 1972 who, whether before or after that date, complete three years’ effective full-time service.
  2. National Servicemen and National Service Officers serving immediately before 7 December 1972, who complete the period of service for which they were engaged to serve.
  3. Representatives of approved welfare organisations who, subject to certain conditions, served overseas with the Australian Forces in the 1939-45 War or in subsequent military operations.
  4. Single and widowed persons with qualifying service in the Forces. (The removal of the dependency requirement enables full recognition to be given to the principle that Defence Service Homes benefits are not only granted as a measure of repatriation but also as a reward for service).

Maximum Loan

The maximum lending limit under the Defence Service Homes Scheme was increased from $9,000 to $12,000 in May 1973 and, in December 1974, the limit was further increased to $15,000.

Deposit Requirements

The rninimum deposit required under the Act was reduced to 5 per cent of the purchase price of the home. A discretionary power in the Act to waive the deposit is being exercised more liberally in favour of widowed mothers, seriously incapacitated applicants and others whose family obligations make it difficult for them to accumulate the normal deposit.

Loans for the Discharge of Existing Mortgages

Prior to December 1972 it was the general policy not to grant loans for the discharge of private mortgages. While it has not been possible to lift restrictions on the provision of assistance for the discharge of existing mortgages, the previous policy has been relaxed and consideration is now given to the granting of loans for this purpose where the terms of the mortgage are onerous and having regard to the applicant’s income, payment of the commitments under the mortgage is causing serious hardship.

In addition, the Act was amended on IS May 1973 to specifically provide for advances to be made to discharge existing mortgages where the applicant is a person entitled to the special rate of pension payable under the first paragraph of the second schedule of the Repatriation Act. (Broadly this covers totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners.)

Assistance in Respect of a Second Home

The general intention of the Scheme has always been that an eligible person will be entitled to the benefits of the Scheme on only one occasion and the longstanding policy has been to grant assistance in respect of a second home only in circumstances of great emergency.

For a number of years strong representations had been received seeking an amendment to the Act to enable loans to be transferred from one home to another where the borrower is compelled to move for medical or employment reasons.

After reviewing the matter closely, the Government concluded that there was a need for a more flexible set of arrangements and the Act was amended on 6 December 1974 to include provisions which facilitate the transfer of the balance of an existing loan from one home to another in special circumstances. However approval to transfer a loan will only be given where- the borrower, for reasons beyond his control, is compelled to move to another home; the application for the transfer of the loan is made before the first home is sold and the liability under the Defence Service Homes Act discharged; the applicant contributes as a deposit on the second home the full net proceeds derived from the sale of the first home.

Interest Rate

The Government reviewed the interest rate charged in respect of loans made under the Scheme. The rate of 3% per cent per annum had not been changed since it was fixed at that level in 1 946 and since then the long term bond rate had risen from 3 per cent to 9!4 per cent per annum. It was decided to retain the rate of 3% percent per annum for all loans up to the previous maximum loan of $ 12,000, and to provide for interest at a rate of 2 per cent below the most favourable rate charged by the Commonwealth Savings Bank on housing loans, to be charged on the amount of loan in excess of $12,000.

Special Arrangements for Persons on Limited Incomes

In reviewing the interest rate on Defence Service Homes loans, the Government was concerned that an increase in the interest rate could make it necessary to refuse some applications for loans from eligible persons who ordinarily could not meet the obligations of home ownership except under the concessional conditions previously provided in the Defence Service Homes Act. Examples are widows, totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, persons living on age pensions or small superannuation payments.

To enable loans up to the new maximum loan of $13,000 to be granted in those cases, the Government decided that provision should be made in the legislation for a reduction in the instalments otherwise payable in cases where it is established that it would cause hardship to the applicant if he were required to pay in full the amount of the instalments based on the higher rate of interest payable on loan amounts in excess of $12,000. The amount by which instalments are reduced will remain as a charge on the property, but payment will not ordinarily be required while the purchaser or borrower continues to occupy the home, unless there is an improvement in his financial position, which permits him to make increased payments.

page 375

OPERATIONS

Since the Labor Government took office, activities under the Defence Service Homes Scheme have increased as follows:

An amount of $130 million has been provided in the Budget for expenditure on Defence Service Homes in 1 974-75.

From the inception of the Scheme in 1919 to 30 April 1975, 352 187 applicants had been assisted under the Scheme to become home owners and the total expenditure under the Scheme was $ 1 ,779,23 1 ,826.

page 375

GROUP HOMES

A special feature of the Defence Service Homes Scheme is the opportunity to purchase at cost, land or land and a dwelling-house in a Defence Service Homes estate. Upon the Labor Government coming into office, special action was taken to increase the stock of land to meet present and future demand. Land holdings, which at 30 June 1972 were estimated as sufficient to yield 4992 building lots were sufficient at 31 December 1974 to yield 11415 building lots. There are currently 49 Defence Service Homes estates in various stages of planning and development.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I do not know what the objective of honourable gentlemen is in trying to make some great issue over this matter. The great issue is that, with the creation of the Australian Housing Corporation, the very great benefits which the old War Service Homes Division was able to give to returned servicemen for some 50 years will be enhanced. The Corporation obviously will have a much greater future than the old War Service Homes Division. I have noticed over the years that a very great number of Liberal members of Parliament have objected to the War Service Homes Division because it was an outstandingly successful socialist enterprise. Ex-servicemen were able to get the best of attention at a minimum of cost. The old War Service Homes Division was not only better than any bank or any building society but also immeasurably better than any insurance company. It also made available for ex-servicemen the services of such skilled people as conveyancers, solicitors and architects.

There was, as I would expect honourable members to have realised, some diminution of morale in the old War Service Homes Division because, with the cessation of overseas wars and the aging of people who had taken part in them, the future of the Division was minimal. That was one of the reasons why the Australian Governmentmy Government- decided to put the whole of the War Service Homes Division on a much wider basis. We would hope that, in due course, the services which previously were limited to those who had served overseas on active service will become increasingly available to all those who fall within the Australian Parliament’s jurisdiction. There is no substantial difference of opinion between the Returned Services League and the Government on this matter at all. The RSL has acknowledged the fact that conditions of housing for returned men or for serving members are immeasurably better than they were when this Government was elected.

page 376

QUESTION

WELFARE HOUSING

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of Press reports of the criticism by the New South Wales Minister for Housing of the Budget allocations for welfare housing? Is it a fact that New South Wales will receive from the Budget this financial year only $90m for welfare housing? Finally, what is the allocation to New South Wales for welfare housing in the current Budget, and what was the allocation for welfare housing in the last full year of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can well appreciate the honourable gentleman’s concern about the reports because I suppose that nobody has illustrated greater concern for welfare housing than he has. If the New South Wales Government were prepared to use in order to solve the economic problems of that State half the energy that it has used in the last 24 hours to misrepresent the effects of the Australian Budget, New South Wales would be a better place in which to live. It is difficult to imagine a greater collection of drivel and grizzle than we have witnessed so far.

The claim by the Minister as reported in the Daily Telegraph, that New South Wales will receive only $90m, is completely false. New South Wales will receive for welfare housing in this financial year an amount of $123,41 1,000. That is the same as last year. Let us look at what happened in the last full year of Liberal-Country Party rule-1971-72.

Mr Hunt:

– In real terms.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member can do the calculation in real terms if he likes or in actual terms, but the amount was $55.5m. So the criticism of this Government’s provision for welfare housing has come about as a result of an increase of 122 per cent in the amount actually allocated as compared with 1971-72. In fact, the amount of $123.411m compares very favourable indeed with the amount allocated in the last 3 full years of office of the Liberal-Country Party Government. In those 3 full years it was able to muster and allocate $138.55m. Last year the Australian Government advanced amounts to the States for welfare housing that were consistent with their capacity to spend the funds; in other words, every cent that they could spend was allocated to them. In 1973-74 the New South Wales Government had to carry over an amount of $ 17m which had been allocated for welfare housing because it did not have the capacity or the ability to spend it. The amount of $123m is to be split up between the Housing Commission of New South Wales and the Home Builders Account. The allocation is a matter to be decided in negotiations between the New South Wales Minister and myself.

The New South Wales Government has shown over a period of time that it has severely neglected the people in need of welfare housing, particularly in respect of community services. It is obsessed with a North Shore mentality. I simply say to this House that the criticism is a mixture of sham, hyperbole and misrepresentation. The New South Wales Government is very quick to criticise any lack of spending by the Australian Government and is equally quick to criticise any means by which funds are raised in order to enable such spending to be carried out. In my view the attack on the Budget by the New South Wales Government illustrates a sanctimonious attitude by those who are dominated by North Shore duplicity.

page 376

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY MR HAWKE ON UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement by Mr Hawke, his colleague and successor as the Leader of the Opposition, and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on television on Tuesday evening in which he said that the Budget involved an increase in unemployment? Is he aware of Mr Hawke ‘s view that [funemployment were to increase the Prime Minister should stand ready to bring in supplementary Budget measures? Will the Prime Minister bring down a supplementary Budget if, as expected by the President of the ACTU, the unemployment situation does get worse? If the Prime Minister doubts that I have correctly stated what Mr Hawke has said, I have a transcript of what he did say.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– A question was asked of the Treasurer on this matter yesterday. He gave an answer to it. I support the answer. I regret not seeing the television performance on Tuesday night in which Mr Hawke and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition featured as, whatever may be the future of Mr Hawke, I have no doubt that he will collaborate with me in ensuring that the Leader of the Opposition remains in his present position. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition ought to content himself with Press handouts as his friends will look after him there, but when he is exposed in a confrontation on television or in this Parliament not even his friends can cover up for him.

page 377

QUESTION

EYRE HIGHWAY

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Transport state what progress is being made with the sealing of the Eyre Highway in South Australia approaching the Western Australian border? Can he inform the House of the expected completion date? Are there any further steps that the Australian Government can take to expedite the completion of the work?

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

-Recently members of my Department had discussions with the principals of the Department of Transport in South Australia who advised that they expected to complete the sealing of the Eyre Highway during 1975-76. There have been some problems with some of the contractors, one of whom had to relinquish his contract which in turn has been taken up by other contractors. So that part of the work is proceeding quite satisfactorily. At the moment, apart from the 3 earthwork contractors, the South Australian Highways Department and the contractors who are doing the priming and sealing have 6 tankers working on the job. As I said to the honourable member earlier, it is anticipated that the construction and sealing will be completed this year. It is part of our objective to ensure that the Trans- Australia Railway is then in competition with the road hauliers as well as sea transport so that there will be a truly competitive position between these modes of transport. On top of that we want to use the equipment that is being used on sealing the Eyre Highway to get under way with work on the Stuart Highway, which was part of the Prime Minister’s election policy and promises. Once we can get the equipment released from work on the Eyre Highway it can then be used on the Stuart Highway.

The honourable member asked whether there are any procedural matters holding up completion of the Eyre Highway. No, as far as this Government is concerned all the approvals that are necessary under the national highway program have been put through and there is no reason why work should be held up by reason of finance.

page 377

QUESTION

EXTRADITION OF ALEXANDER AND THOMAS BARTON

Mr HUNT:

-I ask the Attorney-General: Is it correct that the court in Paraguay which refused extradition of the Bartons did so because it did not consider that the British extradition treaty with Paraguay applied to Australia? Do we rely on British treaties for extradition procedures with a substantial number of other countries? If the Paraguayan decision brings into question extradition arrangements between Australia and other countries, what special steps are being taken to have the Paraguayan court decision reversed or otherwise to overcome this dangerous situation?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for the question because it involves a matter of considerable concern to many Australians. The Barton case, of course, highlights not only the difficulties with extradition law but also the sorry state of corporate law generally in Australia. I have in mind matters relating to the proposed corporations and securities Bill, the corporate affairs bureaus as they exist in the various States and matters of that sort. It is true in regard to extradition law that Australia still depends in large measure on old treaties, and a consequential element of uncertainty comes into the situation. For some time the Government has been embarked upon an ambitious program of negotiating and upgrading the extradition law. Through the Department of Foreign Affairs and my own Department work is in hand on these matters.

So far as the particular court case is concerned, although it is early days yet it is my understanding, as I indicated to the House yesterday, that an appeal will be lodged and our lawyers in Paraguay, who are versed in Paraguayan law, not Australian law, are optimistic about our chances. I would like to make a final point before I sit down. When one thinks of the Barton situation and other situations that were in the news even this morning- Queensland Mines Ltd, Nabarlek, Patrick Partners and matters of that sort, all at different levels- we can only say how lamentable is the Australian legal situation, fragmented as it is through the various States, each section unable to take care of the situations that can develop at any time and how much we badly need corporations and securities legislation of a kind that we introduced into this Parliament as long as 7 months ago.

One could go on and say that the Rae Committee in the Senate sat for 4 years exposing mischief and abuse of this sort. My predecessor introduced the Bill into the Senate, I think in December of last year. That Bill went through this House, I think in February, or perhaps ea’rly March, of this year. It is now bogged down in the Senate on the motion of the Opposition parties in the Senate. It does no credit to this Parliament. It certainly does no credit to the Liberal Party and the National Country Party which must be seen to be opposing reform measures of this sort. It is only when we get reform measures of this sort that abuses of the sort which the honourable member has in mind will become a less frequent feature of the Australian scene.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call any further members, could I suggest to Ministers that they might shorten their answers? Otherwise yesterday’s near record number of questions will be followed by a near record low number.

page 378

BUDGET

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to a statement this morning that adverse community reaction to Tuesday’s Budget has been excessive and dangerous? Can the Treasurer say whether the statement refers to a genuine community feeling or to synthetic indignation manufactured by some newspapers and some individuals for party political purposes? Can he say what the dangers are for Australia in conduct of this kind?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I noted the comment in the newspaper which is not usually regarded as a socialist journal, making this point in defence of the position of this Government. The point is well taken. First of all, much of the indignation and perhaps just about all of it is manufactured. Most of the manufacturing is coming from the benches of the Opposition. I find that rather puzzling because if honourable members opposite were successful in sowing discord and pessimism in the community- that is their purpose because they have only one objective in mind and that is to try to undermine confidence in the community so that hopefully they can capitalise on that for a very narrow, very short time, and very selfish political purposes- then the corporate sector of the Australian economy would suffer more seriously than any other sector.

The corporate sector is showing signs of an early recovery. I have said that many times and I repeat it. We should not try to frighten this development. I do not try to make too much of the strength of that recovery. On the other hand, members of the Opposition who profess to be dedicated to the free enterprise system in the community seem committed to undermining that recovery to the disadvantage of the private sector.

page 378

QUESTION

PRESS RELEASE

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for the Media aware of an article that appeared in the Brisbane Courier Mail reporting that the Australian Government’s Brisbane media office had mistakenly released a statement on behalf of the State Labor member for Rockhampton, Mr Wright? Has the Minister carried out an investigation of the matter and will he report on the incident? Can the Minister confirm the statement attributed to Department of the Media liaison officer, Barry Cotterill, that the facility was only for Federal Labor members of Parliament, or is it for the use of all Federal members of Parliament? Where else have similar offices been established and are more offices planned?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer is short and simple. The gentleman is not employed by the Department of the Media. He is employed by the Labor Party members themselves and it is their business what he does.

page 378

QUESTION

BUDGET OUTLAYS

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to reports of reductions in public housing construction, massive cutbacks in road programs and a halt to improvements in public transport being contemplated by the New South Wales State Government as a result of Tuesday ‘s Budget? Can he compare the increase in payments to the States for which provision is made in the Budget with the increase in Australian

Government outlays? Can he say whether there is any justification for the reports?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– There is no justification for the reports. The States have never been better treated financially than they have been under this Government. For instance, this year financial assistance grants to the States will be of the order of $3, 1 85m, an increase of 34 per cent. Additionally, we introduced an improved betterment factor which increased the multiplier for that purpose from 1.8 to 3 per cent. We added $220m to the base grant. But the overall picture is even more generous than that. The estimates for 1975-76 of total funds going to the States from the Australian Government- they cover capital funds as well as funds for recurrent purposes and include specific grants- show that the States will get $8,566m from the Australian Government compared with $6,567m last year, an increase of some $2,000m. That is an increase of a much greater order than the order by which we have increased our outlays of expenditure under the Budget. If one bears in mind that some 25 per cent of our commitment for expenditure in the Budget is for the States one can readily gauge just how generous this Government has been, at some sacrifice to itself, to the States.

page 379

QUESTION

REFUGEES

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister Have some South Vietnamese refugees been required to sign a document undertaking not to take part in any political activity in Australia? Who is responsible for this undertaking being sought? Have refugees from any other country coming to Australia ever been asked to sign a similar undertaking? Does this undertaking mean that the South Vietnamese can never be granted Australian citizenship or, if they can, they will not have the same civil rights as all other Australian citizens have?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Certain South Vietnamese refugees, quite properly, were required to give such an undertaking. We ought to know from our experience throughout the 1960s that there are very many people on the other side of politics, both within the Parliament and outside, who will try to exacerbate divisions in the community in the light of the Vietnam situation during that period. It is all right for the guilty men on the other side now to say - (Opposition members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will cease answering the question and resume his seat until the House is ready to listen. If honourable members on the Opposition side want the number of questions maintained I think they have to be prepared to listen to the answers. I suggest that honourable members on the Government benches might also remain silent.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Over the years we should not forget that a very great number of people in Australia saw political advantage in and wanted to retain their vested interest of cashing in on the mistakes of the West in Indo-China over the last 30 years. They are balked at the fact that this issue is no longer available to them; that the West as a whole, not only in Europe but now also in North America and Oceania, has woken up to the cruel exploitation of the people of Vietnam. There are some people still in Australia who would like to cash in on the consequences of the disastrous policies that previous Australian governments supported in Indo-China. There were a few people- my memory is that they were mainly diplomats- who sought asylum in Australia, and in those circumstances very properly I said that they could have asylum if they undertook not to engage in political activity or allow themselves to be exploited in political activity. Obviously anybody who comes to Australia is as entitled to seek Australian citizenship under the law as anybody else is, whether such an undertaking has been given or not.

page 379

QUESTION

BUDGET TAX REFORMS

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Treasurer seen reports of a statement yesterday that families deriving benefits from Tuesday’s Budget tax reforms are spendthrifts? Can he say what advantage the half a million families newly exempted from taxation payments were previously able to gain from the Liberal taxation deduction system? Can he say whether there is any reason why families which simply cannot afford large outlays for insurance and school fees should be denied the advantages of tax reform?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-The Leader of the Opposition has set himself firmly against the redistributional reform effects of the new personal income tax scale. He has established his position in defence of a privileged minority in the community. What he has effectively said is that, given the opportunity, he would prevent the introduction of this personal income tax scheme; he would prefer to persevere with the present system of taxation, with all its inequities and all its serious defects in administrative and operational respects. He is saying, in effect, that the half a million people who currently pay tax under the present scheme, who are among the most needy in the community and who would cease paying tax under our scheme, in fact will be forced to continue paying tax if he has his way. He has a rather curious argument to the effect that his defence is in support of the thrifty- those who save, those who work hard, those who keep their nose to the grindstone. Surely a marginal tax rate of 35 per cent, for instance, for people with incomes between $5,000 and $10,000 a year, compared with the present rate of between 44c and 48c in the dollar, is an incentive to more industry- if the proposition upon which his assumptions are based is that people work harder if they are given more return for their work.

We ought to be clear about the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the philosophical inspiration upon which he proceeds- the philosophy of objectivism, the Ayn Rand school of thought. That is that man stands alone and stands for himself and to hell with anyone else; that what happens to others is their fault and their responsibility. To put it in its simplest form, those who make it in our sort of society should be able to hang on to everything they get and if they get it from their forebears in the form of a wealthy inheritance, perhaps a large pastoral holding, then the case becomes even more persuasive. This is a sort of reversion to socialeconomic Darwinism. If, on the other hand, they fall flat on their face in the struggle in our sort of system and cannot get up, they have freedomthe Leader of the Opposition is talking about freedoms lately in a rather vague way which in a general sense sounds unexceptionable but, if one knows the inspiration that is guiding him, I think it is rather exceptionable- and their freedom is to stay flat on their face. Some freedom! I conclude with a word of warning to my good friend the Leader of the Opposition: He is an innocent country boy and he may well be the unwitting victim of a gigantic international communist conspiracy. Ayn Rand graduated from the Leningrad University in 1924.

page 380

QUESTION

REFUGEES

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister a question that is a supplementary to the one that was asked of him by the honourable member for Warringah. Was any undertaking required of the Chilean refugees that they should not participate in politics or political discussions in Australia? Has any undertaking similar to that required of refugees from South Vietnam been required of any other category of refugees admitted into Australia since the admission of refugees first began? Does he believe that, as a result of the undertaking given by those of whom he has required that there should be no political involvement, they will be second rate Australian citizens in that apparently they are not to be allowed to participate in political affairs in the same way as every other Australian citizen is?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– There is no requirement of the character that I earlier described for categories of refugees as a whole. Hundreds of Vietnamese refugees have come to this country. They were in general refugees who were not going to be admitted by any other country in our region. There is only a handful of people who are Vietnamese citizens and who have been required to give the undertaking which I have described. I have no doubt that the honourable gentleman is very frustrated that he will not be able to exploit these people who have given the undertaking unless they break their word of honour. They were, as I say, principally diplomats. They were not people who would ordinarily have come within any category for admission to Australia, but they were allowed in on condition that they gave this undertaking- a very proper undertaking. If in due course they wish to become Australian citizens, then of course they will be able to become Australian citizens like anybody else who lives in the country.

Mr Sinclair:

– Second rate citizens.

Mr WHITLAM:

– There is surely no second rate status involved in abstaining from stirring up old passions. I do not know how long honourable gentlemen opposite will want to exploit these situations which they did so much to prolong. I would have thought that they would show some shame at the fact that, now that they are no longer incinerating and obliterating Vietnamese, they still want to exploit those who have come to Australia.

Mr Sinclair:

– What about the Chileans?

Mr WHITLAM:

-The honourable gentleman mentions the Chileans. I do not know whether any undertakings were required from Chileans. There has been no history of Chilean political activity in this country. I certainly believe that the Chileans who have been given refuge in this country should refrain from political activity as should Ugandans and others. But there has not been a history of Chilean or Ugandan political activity in Australia. There has been a regrettable history for the last 15 years of the exploitation for internal Australian political reasons of the situation in South Vietnam. The honourable gentleman wants to continue to exploit for his political purposes those refugees who have come to Australia as a result of the disastrous failure of the policies which his Government supported in Vietnam throughout the 1960s.

page 381

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: GRANTS AND LOANS

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The part of the question requesting information about policy is out of order. I suggest that the Prime Minister not state the policy.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-My Government sought election on the promise that it would enable local government to participate in the proceedings of the Loan Council and that it would allow local government to have access to the Grants Commission. Over 2 years ago the Parliament passed a new Act giving an extended charter to the Grants Commission. As a result of that Act local government has benefited immensely in last year’s Budget and in this year’s Budget. Last year local government in Australia received $56.3m. In this Budget it will receive $79.9m. In each case those sums will be available to local government bodies to spend as they see fit.

Unfortunately it has not been possible to carry out the other undertaking upon which my Government sought election, that local government should have representation on the Loan Council. It will be remembered that at the Constitutional Convention in September 1973 I put the proposition that the aldermen and councillors in each State should be entitled to elect a person to speak and vote for them on the Loan Council.

It was agreed at the Constitutional Convention that the 6 Premiers and I should meet the following month- October 1973- to discuss an amendment of the Financial Agreement under which the Loan Council operates. Only 2 Premiers supported my Government’s proposal, Mr Tonkin and Mr Reece. It required the support of all 7 heads of government. Accordingly, we had to try other means. In May last year a referendum was held on a proposal to provide that the Australian Government could borrow money on behalf of local government bodies. The referendum was carried in New South Wales. It was almost carried in Victoria. It received 46.8 per cent of the votes in the 6 Australian States combined.

I am happy to say that over the last few months, as a result of the renewed effort to have the Constitutional Convention reconvened, it has been agreed that at next month’s Constitutional Convention, which will assemble in Melbourne on 24 September, 2 local government proposals will be on the agenda. The first is for a referendum to permit this Parliament to make laws with respect to the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth for local government bodies constituted under the law of a State or Territory; the other is to permit the Parliament to grant financial assistance to any local government body constituted under the law of a State or Territory on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. Those items will come before the Constitutional Convention. They are listed immediately after the agenda item concerning the referendum on interchange of powers and the agenda items concerning amendment of the referendum provisions contained in section 128 of the Constitution.

page 381

QUESTION

GROWTH RATE OF MONEY SUPPLY

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

-I ask the Prime Minister the following question: Does the honourable gentleman support the Treasurer’s commitment to a steady reduction in the growth rate of the money supply during this financial year? Does this mean that there will be an unprecedented level of borrowings by the Government from the public this year to finance the deficit? Will he explain to the House how this will be done without an increase in official interest rates, especially in the last 6 months of the financial year?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-On behalf of the Prime Minister I assure the honourable member that the Prime Minister agrees with me. We will successfully do what I mentioned yesterday. I do not intend responding to the invitation to start speculating on the various ways in which these things will be achieved. The honourable member, who is the economic specialist of the Opposition in search of an economic policy, ought to understand the reasons why.

page 381

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND MINES LIMITED

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the AttorneyGeneral been drawn to the publication of a report dealing with Queensland Mines Ltd? Does this report point up blatant malpractices contrary to the public interest? Does the report question the claims of the stock exchanges that they are capable of regulating the dishonest and corrupt activities of their member companies? Will the Attorney-General inform the House whether the proposed corporations and securities industry legislation, if allowed to pass by the Opposition, will protect the public from such activities?

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– I have seen the report referred to by the honourable gentleman. Indeed, I referred to it in answering an earlier question. The report is almost a notorious fact in Australian public life these days because it has been the subject of so much comment. I think I heard Senator Rae on the radio program A.M. this morning describing the situation revealed in the report, the conflict of interests, the insider trading, the reckless representations made and the opportunity for and abuse of privilege. These have become well known to all honourable members as a feature of that industry to the detriment of many Australians. The report also set out that not only were people being unjustly enriched by abusing their privilege and their position but they were doing so at the expense of ordinary Australian investors who were being defrauded and taken down. I remember the report saying- I am sure Senator Rae said it- that the adverse effects on the capital market of Australia were something that should not be overlooked.

It has been said over and over again that Australia needs a single, all-embracing corporations and securities law. One asks: How often are we to hear that said? It is as easy to transfer capital in Australia today as it is to make a telephone call. It can go from Sydney to Perth on the making of a telephone call. Yet the States persist in their 6 separate puny attempts to regulate these abuses. I have no doubt at all that in their own minds they concede the futility of the effort. Yet they oppose this Parliament, this Government putting the situation right or moving in the direction of putting it right.

As I said in answer to the earlier question, we introduced into this Parliament the Corporations and Securities Bill in, I think, February or March. It had previously been introduced into the Senate in December of last year. We are now in August of 1975. It went through this House after a full debate. The Opposition did not move a single amendment to the Bill when it was here because it had not really thought out its position. Yet the Bill had been the subject of close, detailed, prolonged public discussion and consultations with the various professional associations throughout Australia. Representations were received. I have certainly made it clear that we are not dogmatic on it as. a piece of legislation. We are flexible. We want there to be a law. We have certainly said that we are prepared to consider any reasonable amendment put forward to the Bill. But in the Senate predictably the Opposition-the Liberal and National Country Party people who insist upon preserving the present inadequate system- insisted upon referring the legislation to a Standing Committee, despite the opposition of the Government. The Bill is with the Standing Committee now. It has to be said that, as I understand it, the Standing Committee has barely begun to consider the task and is already asking for an extension of time. If amendments are to be moved they can be moved and the Government will consider them. But this situation does this Parliament little credit. It does great discredit to the Liberal and National Country Party people for their continued obstinate opposition to measures of . reform of this sort because all it means is that cases like Patrick Partners, Queensland Mines Ltd and the Bartons will be a continual affliction on Australian corporate life for years to come.

page 382

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to honourable members that in asking questions they take a little more cognisance of the Standing Orders. Since the start of this sessional period I have been more lenient in ruling on questions than I was during the last sessional period. But a number of questions today and during this week have gone very close to asking Ministers for opinions on statements made by other persons or opinions on matters which have been the policy of previous governments, both of which are out of order. I think such questions prolong answers and do not do any service at question time. I ask honourable members to be more careful in framing the questions they ask.

page 382

TERTIARY STUDENTS

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the survey: Income and Expenditure Patterns of Australian Tertiary Students in 1974’. Due to the limited numbers available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 382

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority on Sporting Goods, Air Conditioning Machines and Evaporative Air Coolers and Certain Time Switches and Clock Movements.

page 383

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been personally misrepresented?

Mr WILSON:

-Yes. On Tuesday at question time the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) said that I had suggested an optional preferential voting system in which a voter had ‘only to vote on a group basis for one candidate’. I have never advocated or supported such a system. I have proposed a simplified preferential system- a system which would enable the voter who wishes not only to support a particular candidate but also to record his preferences in the manner recommended by that candidate to use a shorthand method of voting.

The proposed simplified system of preferential voting would enable a voter to place a No. 1 beside the name of the candidate he most prefers, to have his vote counted and, if necessary, to have his preferences distributed in the recommended manner, without the need to number each square. If a distribution of preferences became necessary the votes of the candidate to whom the No. 1 vote was given would be counted in accordance with the recommendations of the candidate ‘s how to vote card. What I have said is that if the voter wants to record his preference in some other way he should still have the right to do so by placing a number in each square according to his preference, as at present. What I have said is that, in either event, a voter should have the right to vote for an individual candidate. He should not be compelled to vote for a list on an all or none basis. To imply that I would support this form of depersonalisation of parliamentary representation is to misrepresent my views.

page 383

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Land Valuation- Ministerial AdministrationEquality in Education- Political Freedom: Vietnamese Refugees Opposition PoliciesTertiary Allowance Scheme- Car Consumers’ Association Report- Palestine Liberation Organisation- Anonymous Letters: Nuisance Telephone Calls- Mineral Resources- National Employment and Training Scheme

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

-The matter I wish to raise in this debate concerns many Austraiian citizens who are victims of an unjust system of land valuation as it affects local government ratepayers. The matter has received some attention from time to time and is mainly one which comes within the jurisdiction of State governments. I raise this matter in the House today because I believe it is of very great importance. Perhaps it is a question that could usefully be discussed in conferences between the Australian and State governments. It also might be discussed, to some advantage, at the Constitutional Convention meetings.

I ventilate this matter today because the Australian Government has shown initiative in a number of areas and here is another opportunity for the Australian Government to deal with a question. Ratepayers- goods citizens of this country- are suffering from an oppressive land valuation system when applied to the collection of local government rates. The New South Wales Government is unmoved by the burden being borne by some of the nation’s best citizens. I make a plea today for thought and consideration to be given to these people who have helped to pioneer our country, have reared families and have built homes for the purpose of having a place in which to live in the closing period of their lives. They find, unfortunately, that because of the present land valuation system quite frequently rates skyrocket and land values increase as a result of the activities of speculators, developers and others who buy lots of land. This, in turn, affects the people who do not wish to be moved and whose property values remain approximately the same over the years.

Honourable members would know that local government rates are based on the unimproved capital value of land. Recent land sales are taken as a measure of the unimproved capital value. I should like to point out how injustice is brought to citizens. This affects people in cities, towns and the countryside. No one is exempt from this form of land valuation and rate collection. A particular case which has come to my attention is in the city of Bathurst. Flats were permitted to be built in a residential areas in which people had bought or built homes so that they might live the rest of their lives in a decent environment and in the company of friends and relatives. They were disturbed when a developer paid a high price for a property and that high price was translated into the value of all the other properties in that area. I ask honourable members to consider the plight of citizens who had their homes built and who have now been shocked to find that the valuations on those homes have increased sharply. The savage rates that have been imposed on them are of such magnitude that they find it almost impossible to pay the rates levied on them. These savage increases in rates ought to be halted. I believe that action needs to be taken in this country at this time if the situation is to be eased in any fashion at all.

I bring to the attention of honourable members a number of cases that have come to my notice. The first concerns a valuation in the city of Bathurst which rose from $2,800 to $22,000. The rates for these ratepayers- more than one was involved-rose from $280.26 to $1,669.30. These rates must be paid by pensioners, retired people and those reaching the period of retirement. This is an unjust burden. It is an intolerable burden. I feel that parliaments and governments ought to be speaking out about matters of this kind. Through the initiative of this Government, greater grants are being made to local government. But, despite what may be said to the contrary, the situation with respect to rates cannot be overcome merely by the making of grants. These peaks will remain the peaks. They will continue to be great hurdles for people to try to surmount.

In other cases, I found that ratepayers living only on their savings, pension or wages were called upon to pay as much as $2,000 a year in council rates. This situation is utterly unbearable and requires correction. I also bring to the attention of the Parliament the problem faced by farmers. These matters have been referred to me from time to time. A developer-speculator comes along and sells some lots of 25 acres or 50 acres and, as a result, land values increase. Those land values bear no relationship whatsoever to the earning capacity of the land, the economics of the land and the ability of the people to pay their way, having regard to all the costs involved, the increases in charges, the depressed cattle market and, as a further example, the fact that potatoes are an uneconomic proposition at this time. All of these are issues of great concern.

Only this week, to add to all the other representations which have been made to me by numerous people in many places throughout the electorate that I have had the pleasure of representing, I received this letter

I wish to place before you details of rate assessment on my property on Singles Ridge Road, North Springwood, and to ask your support in an effort to remedy the very inequitable position in which I have been placed- with many others in like circumstances.

Attached are copies of relevant correspondence which had taken place over a period of almost one year since my initial protest to the Valuer-General on the valuation increase of over 500 per cent, from $7,500 to $44,000.

That is an increase of almost 600 per cent. The letter continues:

It appears that the only criterion recognised by the V.G. is that of value of sales in the area, regardless of the basis on which such sales were made. In my case adjoining land was bought by speculators at highly inflated prices founded in purely fictitious rumour. Since my land is zoned Non-Urban E’ the restrictions imposed by this zoning make it impossible for me to sell my property.

I am therefore placed in the position of being forced to pay rates based on valuation of $44,000 (this year $953.75) or by default lose the property where my family was raised and which I have held for 28 years. As I am a war widow, now 60 years of age, with a very limited fixed income it is quite beyond my capacity to continue to pay rates at this level.

I beg you, as a last resort, to please make an effort in Parliament to bring about some alleviation of this intolerable burden.

This letter is representative of the feelings of many people. I ventilate this matter in the hope that Parliament- the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) and those who speak for this Parliament on these matterswill seek to stir the States into activity to take a stand in defence of these people who in their closing years deserve justice and not burdens of the type that I have illustrated.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti) who has just spoken, is, I believe, assiduous in representing the views of his electors. The purpose of this debate is to enable members, particularly private members, to express any grievance on matters affecting the conduct of government. In the short time that is allowed to me today I rise to speak on the conduct of many Ministers of this Government, probably the majority of Ministers. I believe that it is valid and necessary to say that the present Labor Government is characterised in large part by incompetence, maladministration, waste, secrecy and evasion. I will give some illustrations of those claims.

One of the rights which every citizen of this country has is the right to make representations to a Minister, if he or she wish through a member of Parliament. Every citizen has the right to expect that such representations will be dealt with quickly, fully and responsibly. This is a most important part of our parliamentary representative democracy. I have at present the largest bundle of outstanding representations to Ministers that I have ever seen in the period that I have been a member of this place. I can get very little response from most Ministers of this Government. The unreplied-to representations that I have make a pile four or five inches thick. Let me mention some of them very quickly.

I mention first those dealing with immigration. This is a particularly bad area. I am sure that my experience is shared by other members in this place. I should not be at all surprised if this situation applied to Ministers themselves when dealing with other Ministers. I mention first the case of a Miss Carnevali- I apologise if I do not pronounce the name correctly- who is making representations on behalf of her sister and brother-in-law, a Mr and Mrs Angelo Gismondi. Sponsorship was sought on 18 October 1974. I made representations on 4 November. I sent a follow-up telegram to the then Minister for Labor and Immigration on 5 March 1975 after no response of any kind was forthcoming except for an acknowledgment of my letter, and that is useless. The Minister sent a letter on 12 May in response to this representation. That letter begged the question so much that additional representations had to be made on 22 May. Today is 21 August, and no substantive reply has been received. This is a bad case. It is one of the worst that I have, but it is by no means atypical of the whole situation.

Under the Regional Employment Development scheme, a primary school in the suburb of Hollywood in my electorate according to my advice actually received approval from the then Minister for Labor and Immigration for a project. With the disruption that has gone on in the preparation and in the dealing with the Budget and all the chopping and changing that has occurred, that school has now been advised that the project has been cancelled. The school already has incurred expenditure of $2,000. We cannot get any reply of an urgent nature out of the Government. There is no response by telephoning, writing letters or sending telegrams. I am advised that there are many similar cases and that the whole administration of this scheme is a complete mess.

For the first time in my knowledge one now has people desperately ringing and saying that the Government owes them such and such an amount for goods sold or services supplied and one has to ring up the Treasury or some other department and try to get the wheels moving so that those people will be paid. Surely to Heaven the Government has an obligation to pay quickly. One can send telegrams and letters or ring and get very little response in this respect.

I turn now to the operation of the National Employment and Training scheme. I have had four particularly bad cases drawn to my attention in this respect. Of course, the people to whom I am about to refer were attracted to make their inquiries at the beginning in November of last year. They have come to me in desperation months later- in March or May. The 4 cases to which I am about to refer- there are more in the files- are still unresolved. A Mr N. Cote, who made an inquiry, was refused. Mr Cote has an appeal pending. He cannot get a reply.

I made representations on behalf of a Mr R. Hall on 25 March. There has been nothing substantive in relation to them. I made representations on behalf of a Mrs Wearne on 28 April. There has been nothing substantive in relation to her. Mrs Wearne was encouraged by the Commonwealth Employment Service to enrol as a trainee in the Nedlands Teachers Training College. They said to her: ‘Your application will be approved. You are in the category of those who will be approved’. So she enrolled. She has 4 children to support. She engaged in such study because she had been encouraged to do so. I repeat that the Minister has not given a substantive reply to my representations on her behalf.

Mrs Robin Bremner was also assured by the Department that she would qualify under the scheme. She did not qualify. She has lodged an appeal. The appeal is to be held in Melbourne. She has since been told by departmental officers that the only thing they can suggest for her to do is to get in touch with her member of Parliament so that he can make representations. She did so and I made representations. What has happened in relation to them? Absolutely nothing. A telegram was sent on 13 May. No response has been received to it. One of those people has written in a letter to me that the NEAT scheme appears to have been ‘ill planned and poorly administered’. I can only commend her for her restraint because obviously the conception and administration of this scheme is incompetence in the extreme. The people to whom I have referred sit during their courses besides people who are receiving aid and who are in comparable positions.

Surely the whole situation has reached a ridiculous stage when members of the Public Service, feeling no doubt out of a sense of decency that they have to say something to these people, have to say to them: ‘Look, we cannot get any quick response. We suggest that you go to your member of Parliament and get him to raise the matter’. The acknowledgement by Ministers of letters written to them is perfunctory. I suppose the making of such an acknowledgement is polite but it does not get one anywhere. One wants a substantive result to representations, even if the answer is no. In many cases the decision may not be the right one, but at least the person concerned knows where he or she stands and is not going to continue to incur expenditure and to run up liabilities unnecessarily. One may follow up a matter by way of a telegram and still not get action taken any more quickly.

From time to time I have heard it stated by certain people that they have not got sufficient staff. For heaven’s sake, these new schemes were instituted by this supposedly bright, radical Government. The Government went to the people and said that it was going to do this, that and the other and those matters were debated and voted upon. The Government should not be saying that it has not got enough staff to deal with the problems which it has caused. That is no excuse. I say that the Government has a deep responsibility to regard the administration of its schemes seriously and not as something to be left to others and to be ignored. That results inevitably in much waste and dilatory conduct. It should be made quite clear that it is for the Ministers to insist upon efficiency being shown by their staffs and their departments. If the administration of a scheme is beyond a Department then that is something that the Minister and the Government ought to have weighed up at the beginning.

I say that the whole tone of the actions of the Government has been to neglect the area of administration, which causes waste and extravagance. When Ministers stand up in this Parliament, as they did during question time this morning, and talk about their generosity they should remember that the money they are spending is the money of the taxpayers of this country. Figures have been supplied, in response to questions that have been asked, that indicate that the Ministry has double the number of staff employed by the previous Government. There is now double the staff on double the salaries with double the degrees, with every office machine and aid known to man and with a vast Public Service back-up. We have already had certain hard evidence of inefficiency in this field. We have had the comment by Dr Anthony, who was the Private Secretary of a Minister, that there were a thousand unanswered queries, or something to that effect, on his Minister’s table. We have had a most illuminating statement by a former Secretary of the former Treasurer, who said that the filing system was not well kept. In fact, he went on to explain that everything was kept loose and that one had to shuffle through everything in order to find documents. That was happening in the office of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. Surely to Heaven the situation has reached a ridiculous stage. I make a plea to the Government to endeavour to overcome the problems. Beset as it may be by its political problems, the adminstrative problems are its responsibility to overcome. The Government is creating hardship, anxiety and expense to thousands of Australians by its reprehensible conduct.

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I want to take the opportunity of this debate to support the remarks of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland). Like him, I want to take the opportunity, without acrimony and without making any personal attack on any Minister or officer of any department, to spur on the Ministers and their advisers to treat the Australian public with a greater deal of respect than they have shown in recent times. To my mind in the final analysis politics is about people and the rights of people. We have a great tradition in Australian political life of giving to even the humblest citizen in the country the right to have his particular grievance aired in the national forum of the Parliament. It has been both disappointing and depressing to note that there have been long delays by some Ministers in answering correspondence from members of Parliament who, in all good faith and honesty, have made representations on behalf of aggrieved constituents. I submit that it would be fit and proper if all Ministers were to adopt the practice of those of their colleagues who are most prompt in replying to the queries raised.

It is disappointing to me that I have had to rise and support the honourable member for Curtin in bringing to the notice of the Australian people the very great discourtesies that have emanated from some ministerial offices. It gives me no personal pleasure and certaintly no delight to have to get up in this chamber and speak like this, but I am concerned and worried about the increasing tendency towards discourtesy on the part of the administrators. Heads of Departments are involved as well as Ministers. It is simply not good enough that citizens have to wait many months for replies to their queries. I am also concerned about the types of replies that quite often are received. Many members of Parliament are very upset when they receive a stereotyped or roneoed reply signed by a Secretary and not the Minister on which is printed the name of their constituent, often without any address, and do not want to hand on the reply to their constituent because of the discourtesy that is inherent in that type of reply.

The long administrative delays are creating great hardship in relation to such schemes as the National Employment and Training scheme and in the field of social security. They are areas in which deep personal emotions are involved. It is to be regretted that the system instead of getting better is getting bogged down and becoming hopeless and rather chaotic. Our office staff in our electorates is spending a great deal of time going through past correspondence in an endeavour to satisfy the requests of the constituents. I think it is appropriate on behalf of all members of Parliament to record in this national Parliament the great measure of thanks that we all owe to our own staffs.

Mr Lucock:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Lusher:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McVEIGH:

– I appreciate the support of my 2 colleagues, the honourable member for Lyne and Hume. I want to record my own deep personal appreciation of my dedicated staff- my secretary, Miss Ann Harber, and my research officer, Trish Burrell. I hope that the infectious enthusiasm that they and members of the staffs of other members of Parliament display will flow over to ministerial staffs. Their dedication could well be copied and their devotion to their duty and concern for people could well be followed by the Public Service with very great benefit to all people involved.

We have noted the vast increases that have taken place in ministerial staff establishments. The honourable member for Curtin touched on this. I note that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) asked a question on 27 April 1972 on this matter and that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) replied to a similar question from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) on 21 November 1973. As a rule of thumb it would appear that the startling increase in the number of people working for Ministers under the Labor Government is roughly of the order of 60 per cent. I am not opposing that increase, but what I do oppose with all the strength at my command is that, notwithstanding this great increase in staff, the service is getting worse. I except from this criticism some Ministers who are superb in the way that they answer correspondence and queries but others just seem to treat us with complete disregard. It is depressing to note that notwithstanding the great innovations and improvements that have been made in such matters as communications some Ministers are more intent on being jet trippers and empire builders than keeping their finger on the pulse of their departments and getting on with the job of giving service to the people whom they should be proud to represent.

Having spoken in that vein I want to comment on a few administrative matters that are causing very great concern within my own electorate and I know that the same situation permeates through many other electorates. I refer to the problems of getting payment under the Regional Employment Development scheme. I might say that I appreciate the fact that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Stewart) has seen fit to come along and participate in this debate. I thank him for the courtesy that he is displaying to back bench members. I have had complaints from several city councils in my electorate that whilst they have appreciated the funding for various essential RED projects under their care, the Federal Government has got the praise and the limelight although in effect the city councils have been picking up the tab because of long delays in receiving payment for the various projects. On many occasions this has resulted in the city councils and shire councils showing a debt on their books as at 30 June. This has a psychological effect on people and on councillors. The councils have to pay interest on the overdrawn amount. The Warwick City Council has been overdrawn by some $ 100,000, at certain times all applicable to RED grants not being paid by the Australian Government. The Jondaryan Shire Council has $50,000 owing. The Council has to pay interest on its overdraft. The Toowoomba City Council lodged claims at the end of May for’ which no payment has been received. There has been further delay and further-bogging down of the administrative machinery. The Glengallen Shire Council owes $35,000.

The final matter on which I want to comment is the cavalier manner in which the Minister in charge of the Grants Commission (Senator Douglas McClelland) treated back bench members when he was the Special Minister of State in charge of the Grants Commission. I specifically refer to the manner in which allocations under the Grants Commission were made known. When I picked up my local paper, the Toowoomba Chronicle, I found that Senator Ron McAuliffe had made an announcement in regard to the grants. At that time I knew nothing about the grants. I took the matter up with the Minister and he really pooled himself when he said that every senator and every member was advised by telegram on Monday, 26 July. Yet the Toowoomba Chronicle rolled off the presses at 3 a.m. on the Monday morning. Obviously the information that Senator McAuliffe had given to the newspaper had been released to him the night before the telegram to senators and members. I want to know whether the local member of Parliament is to be treated as being a secondrate member?

Mr Hunt:
Mr McVEIGH:

– The honourable member for Gwydir says - *

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I wish to refer to one of the most significant political events that took place during the winter recess of the Parliament. As we have seen the Opposition drift further to the right in its statements and as we have tried to analyse the criticism that it has made of Government programs, we have been able to observe that it has put up nothing in place of these programs or said what it would do if it were in government.

I think one of the most interesting statements to be made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) since he became Leader of the Opposition was that made at the Press Club luncheon and reported in newspapers on 1 August. I want to quote what he said because it may be of interest to some of the other members of his own Party and of the National Country Party of Australia who have not already read what he had to say on their behalf. He said:

We reject enforced equality in the work place, in the economy, in education.

We have been unable to get either the Leader of the Opposition, any of his shadow Ministers or indeed any of the members of the Parties opposite to tell us exactly what they mean by not enforcing equality. Obviously it is a direct criticism of the manner in which this Government has carried out its program. I want to go through some of the programs of the Government so that we can see what would happen and what the Opposition would do should it ever return to government. I know at the moment that members of the Opposition think that they are high flyers because the computers tell them that they are more popular than we are. The computers told them that in April of 1974 and they are still sitting in the same place as they were sitting in April of 1974. One of the great strengths of this Government and one of the things that will hold it in good stead in any future campaigns will be the community programs which have been carried out and which are now threatened to be destroyed by a conservative government.

Let us have a look at the manner in which the previous Government did not enforce equality in this country and will not enforce equality when it returns to government at some time in the future. It may be of interest for honourable members opposite to know that when the Australian

Schools Commission did a survey on the Australian schools system after we took over after 23 years of government by the present Opposition there were no fewer than 809 government schools classified as disadvantaged and no fewer than 211 Catholic schools classified as disadvantaged, making a total of 1020 schools with a total enrolment of almost 400 000 children that were going to schools classified as disadvantaged. This is a situation to which we could return if the Opposition should come to power. It would consider the operations of the Schools Commission and the classification of schools as something not in the best interests of Australia- as something that we are trying to force upon the community.

Let us have a look at what it meant. Most citizens of this country get their opportunity at the beginning- at school or pre-school. It is too late after they have finished their schooling. Whilst the Liberal Party and the National Country Party might be critical of what we have done, I ask them to remember the mess in which they left us. There were 400 000 children who were just disadvantaged; there were many other schools on the border but those children were the ones whom the Schools Commission thought it could help most readily. But under the previous Liberal Government almost half the number of children who went to university or colleges of advanced education came from 17 per cent of the community- the professional classes. Sixty per cent of the Australian community made up of the skilled and the unskilled- the manual workersprovided 20 per cent of the intake. That was an enormous waste. It was an absolute waste of ability of children who were going to those schools. Let us recall what Dr McKinnon had to say some time ago in relation to equality of education. He said:

Equality of opportunity does not mean conformity or levelling down. In an equal situation there will, of course, be high flyers and slow plodders within all groups of children. Equality does mean, however, that there ought to be roughly the same proportion of good, bad and indifferent students among all groups in the community.

He goes on to say:

Should children from disadvantaged suburbs not have opportunities to complete secondary school and university simple because their parents are poor? Is there really evidence that they are less able?

Of course what has been exposed by the Karmel Committee report and the carrying out of the policies by the Schools Commission is that those children are not less able. The figures which I cited about entries into universities and colleges of advanced education will change as a result of the policies of this Government. But if the Liberal and National Country Parties return to office we will return to the old system because we cannot have enforced equality. The Leader of the Opposition promised in his speech ‘an exciting approach to choice in education’. For 23 years we have had a look at that excitement. We have had a look at how the community lived with that excitement. We see the policies indicted by the way in which they were carried out at the end of 1972.

Let us look at some of the other areas. In going through what one might analyse as ‘enforced equality’, I suppose that the Liberal Party would regard Medibank as enforced equality. What did it have at the end of 1972 when it went out of office? There were 113 private health schemes. There were 1 1 3 separate and distinct administrations and 1 500 000 people living in this country with no health coverage. I repeat, there were 1 500 000 people involved. At the time of the introduction of Medibank, working people were paying as much as professional people for the right to have some sort of health cover. Are honourable members opposite saying that the introduction of Medibank is enforced equality? Is Medibank to be dismantled whenever a conservative government returns to power in this country? Spokesmen on the other side of the House have a responsibility not to leave it at the statement: ‘We will not have enforced equality’. They are expected to detail what they would do in office. For too long honourable members opposite have been saying that it is not their responsibility to say what they would do- that they are just here to criticise the Government. Medibank covers 13- million people. What are honourable members opposite going to do about it? The Schools Commission gives all children an equal opportunity.

What are honourable members opposite going to do about the Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory? Are we to understand that this is another instance of enforced equality which never took place under previous conservative governments? Would that event of last Saturday have taken place under a conservative government? Would honourable members opposite have looked on that event also as enforced equality? Let us look at child care which was so miserably neglected under the previous Government. Report after report by professional people shows that it is absolutely essential to give the child an opportunity at school and to give them pre-school education and pre-school care for the assistance of the family and for the benefit of the child. Nothing of any significance happened under the Liberal Government. We are trying to do something. We have planned to ensure that all children are catered for in child care centres by 1985. Is that enforced equality? Is this a waste of resources to assist the families around this country? Honourable members opposite should say what they mean.

Between 1949 and 1972, the standard rate of the age pension fluctuated between 18 per cent and 20 per cent of average weekly earnings. Whenever it reached 20 per cent and looked like going higher, in that year the conservative government of the day would give no increase to the pensioners. If there were to be an election, the government would look upon it as a time to give a substantial increase. We said when we came to office in 1972 that the age pension should be 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. One also has to look at what has happened to average weekly earnings since 1972. As has been stated in the House many times, average weekly earnings have risen much faster than the consumer price index. So I think that not only have we kept our pledge to make the pension 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, but we have kept pensions at a much higher rate than was expected in December 1972. Is it the intention of the National Country Party and the Liberal Party to reduce the pension rate from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? Is that giving the pensioners of this country too much equality? Are we enforcing standards on the community which are unacceptable to the Liberal and National Country Parties? It is the opinion of a lot of people in this country that perhaps spokesmen opposite should say a little more in detail about what they mean and what they are going to do should they ever return to office.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-At question time this morning the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) asked the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) two simple questions. They asked whether it was true that the Government had instructed certain Vietnamese refugees to sign statements requiring them not to be involved in Australian political life. The implication of those questions and the manner in which they were answered emphasise once again that this Government has plunged to new depths of political hypocrisy. This Government of compassion and concern has now found itself able to discriminate between people who live in this country. It is worth while reminding this Parliament and the people that in 1972 when this present

Government went to the people, one of the objectives of its policy was to establish a bill of human rights to be applied throughout Australia. On page 45 of the Platform Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor Party, we see that the Australian Constitution is to be amended to provide for the protection of fundamental civil rights and liberties. Paragraph 2 of the section on civil liberties states:

The Australian and State Parliaments to pass Acts providing for human rights and civil liberties, and to take all possible legislative and administrative action and judicial proceedings to prevent infringement of such rights and liberties and in particular to prevent discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, sex, creed or politics.

I stress the word ‘polities’. We are faced today with a blatant attempt by -this Government to eat away at the fundamental rights of the Australian people. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the comment of the great French philosopher, Voltaire, who, in 1764, at the time of the French Revolution said: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.

We on this side of the House know the views which the present Government has on Vietnam. We understand the attitudes of the Prime Minister, but we do not necessarily agree with nor accept them. But to suggest that people who have been allowed to come to this land, who have lost so much, their possessions, their rights in their own country and above all some of their self respect, should now be permitted to enter Australia as second class citizens and be denied the inalienable rights which we all take for granted, is a situation which I for one view with abhorrence and dismay. I wish to make it quite clear at this point that, whether a person is a Chilean, a Bait, a Ugandan, a Cypriot or a Vietnamese, once given permission to enter Australia they should have the full rights and responsibilities under the law of this land. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be divided, and above all they should not be applied, on the basis of race or political belief. What people were in their last country of residence is irrelevant. What is important is that the Government of the day permitted them to enter Australia. In allowing them to do so, it should have taken into account the full implications of that action. Above all, it is essential that people who live in Australia be given the full rights under the law.

I submit that the Government, by this action, has contravened Articles 14 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let me read out, for the benefit of this House, what those articles contain. In Article 14 we are told:

Everyone had the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries an asylum from persecution.

We have brought into this land political refugees from many lands. In recent years the 2 most notable groups have been the Chileans and the Vietnamese. They came specifically with the objective of finding a new home free from persecution and where they would be allowed to live their lives as they wished with only one control, namely, the laws of Australia. Certainly there is no law of which I am aware which dictates that any person or any citizen living in this land should be prevented from enjoying to the full his democratic rights. Article 19 of the Declaration is also relevant and states as follows:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The Prime Minister, in justification of his action, made the spurious point that he was trying more or less to protect these people against us members of the Opposition and against those elements in the Australian community who, he alleged, would use them for devious political ends. I suggest that the Prime Minister should give us some credit. The Vietnamese war is over. We have to live with Vietnam, regardless of its political complexion. I would hope that he would expect this Opposition to have the capacity to know that, having seen the march of history, we now have to live with the outcome tomorrow. It is not in our interests nor in the interests of the Vietnamese refugees for us to continually rake over old coals. We have to build our relationships with Vietnam. To suggest that we are going to utilise these people for so-called nefarious political purposes is a deliberate attempt to discredit the Opposition with no evidence and shows the Prime Minister for what he is- a shallow person who assumes that his political opposition has no morality and does not support Australia’s essential interests.

I hope that this House will take this matter seriously, because there are many migrant groups in Australia, whether they be Jews, Arabs, Czechs, Yugoslavs, people from the Baltic states, Ugandans, Chileans or Vietnamese, who came to this land with the presumption that they were coming to a country of freedom. In Australia the right of freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. It is one which this Parliament must forever be willing to defend, for should we lose in any degree the right of freedom of speech we will be faced with the situation which Edmund Burke described so well:

Whilst freedom is true to itself, everything becomes subject to it.

This Government should remember well the advice of the great Roman philosopher Cicero, who said:

Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I take the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) to task for what he said about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as applied to Vietnamese migrants in Australia. He might consider for a moment applying the same argument to the period only a few years ago when the Party to which he belongs shot and destroyed Vietnamese people in an undeclared war in Vietnam, not because of any territorial infringements on Australia by the Vietnamese and without a declaration of war. So much for his pious words. The Liberal Party has used the Vietnamese people for its own political ends since about 1965, and apparently it continues to do so. I think the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield could be regarded as complete humbug.

I want to speak today about the marvellous protestations and speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of recent times and to refer in particular, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) did, to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition at a National Press Club luncheon. I point out to the House that it is 4 months since the Leader of the Opposition took power in Australia as leader of the alternative government. To date there has been no enunciation of policy by him. He has been preoccupied with ridding his own Party of all vestiges of Sneddenism. The moderates in the Liberal Party are completely persona non grata. It is a case of cleaning out the stable. Anyone with any moderate thoughts has been suppressed and expunged from the Liberal political landscape. It is a case of returning to the right. The whole idea is to have a general drift back to the right, unfortunately for Australia. Again we see the hair trigger mentality being displayed. An amusing article written last Sunday related that the Leader of the Opposition became so annoyed because apparently one of the bulls on his home property in the electorate of Wannon was breaking through the fence regularly that finally he leaned over the fence with a shotgun and blew its brains out. The same hair trigger mentality applied when be blew the brains out of his former leader, Prime Minister Gorton. When Prime Minister Gorton annoyed him to the point where it was intolerable for him, he denounced his Prime Minister, knifed him and destroyed him.

He has confirmed all along up to date that his politics remain on the right. He said in the National Press Club speech:

I have no intention of leading a government which is only going to socialise Australia at a slower pace than Labor.

In other words, there is to be no return to Gortonism. Moderation will not be in vogue at all. It is to be the hard line all the way. The Leader of the Opposition is to be the high priest of small government. No longer is big government to be considered. There is to be a tearing down of wealth equalisation. He believes in privilege. He says that he rejects enforced equality which will result from things such as Medibank, which will give protection to people who in the past could not afford to insure themselves against health expenses. Of course, that is under challenge by him in the event of the return of a Liberal government. Things such as child care benefits, free university education for children who could not afford to go to a university, equality in taxation, redistribution of incomes and all those things he calls enforced equality will be rejected. In other words, privilege will be restored. That is what he really campaigns upon.

His speech to the National Press Club was couched in marvellous imprecision. There was nothing precise about it. In fact, the Melbourne Age, which could not be described as a journal supporting this Government, said that his speech was imprecise, disturbing waffle. They are the words of a respected journal, the Melbourne Age, about his speech. It was the first major speech he has made since he became Leader of the Opposition. He said that if he becomes Prime Minister he intends to give an exciting choice in education, as if to say that people in Australia today have no choice in education. What rubbish! If people want to send their children to a private school they can; if they seek to send them to a public school they can. All the Government has done has been to try to see that all schools in Australia are fit for children to go to. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide mentioned, when we came to power in 1972, there were 1020 schools described by the Schools Commission as being sub-standard, affecting 400 000 children. To bring them up to a decent standard of education and a decent standard of quality is, in the terms of the Leader of the Opposition, enforced equality.

On the one hand he talks about enforced equality, and then on the other hand he says in terms of Government spending that he intends to encourage immediate massive investment in private industry through investment allowances and restructured taxes. So in respect of anything which affects the community in general, there is no big government for the middle-income earners and the lower-income earners. There is no government participation to help them to improve their standard of living, but there is government participation to make sure that all of the benefits are returned to industry.

When the Leader of the Opposition talks about enforced equality in education what he means is that all the previous benefits will return to the upper crust and that tax deductions will be there for them to send their children to the greater public schools and the rest. He says he will wreck the Prices Justification Tribunal. He will banish that because it has been an impediment to prosperity. The fact that for years the major corporations in Australia have had no scrutiny has led Australia into the position where inflation is in a bad situation, but he intends to get rid of that tribunal.

He says he wants freedom to strive, to achieve and to seek excellence, freedom to be different and freedom to conform. Have honourable members ever heard so much drivel from the leader of a major Australian party? If the Leader of the Labor Party had proposed that sort of rubbish in 1972 he would not have been elected Prime Minister, nor should he have been. Here is this man, because of the problem of inflation and because he believes that the Government’s stocks are down in the electorate, thinking that he will inherit the mantle of the Primeministership. But I put it to the House: ‘On what?’. What is his policy? Where is his policy? There is not one explanation on policy, just all of these generalities and they are all couched in such oblique terms as to serve whichever policy he would like to introduce into the laws of this land.

He says the Liberals reject enforced equality in the workplace, in the economy and in education. He says a Liberal government will use example, encouragement and specific legislation to rid our country of discrimination. So he is going to use legislation to rid our country of discrimination; that is apparently to ensure that there are not the great gaps between privilege in Australia. He is going to rid Australia, on the one hand, of equality and on the other hand he says he rejects enforced equality in the workplace, in the economy and in education. He rejects any moves to deal with discrimination yet he says in the same speech, 2 paragraphs away, that there will be specific legislation to rid our country of discrimination. How could anybody trust this man? How could anybody rely upon him at all? What is Mr Fraser ‘s view of where Australia should be going? He has no view, of course. All he knows is that he is propped up by the establishment to work for the establishment, to work for privilege in Australia. The whole tone of his addresses on so many occasions now has been against what he terms government interference in the lives of Australians, which is just so much rubbish.

Again he offers criticisms of taxation. He said in his speech that the tax on average weekly earnings should be reduced for the average working man. We reduced it in this Budget from 48c to 35c in $ 1 and he is reported to have said in today’s Press that the tax reforms would only encourage people to be spendthrifts. So on the one hand he says in a speech that there should be a reduction in taxation that applies to average weekly earnings and when we virtually index tax for the $6,000 to $9,000 a year group and reduce the application of tax on that group to 35c in $ 1 he says that it encourages people to be spendthrifts. This Budget saves about $530 per annum for the 2-child family- over $10 a week relief. In addition, this Government has provided Medibank, which is available to everyone in the community, child care facilities, urban development and all these other infrastructures which go to improving the quality of living for people on or below average weekly earnings. It should not be considered that most Australians are on average weekly earnings. Of course most Australians earn less than average weekly earnings.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I want to address the House on an area of administration in which I consider the Government has shown its most glaring incompetence. It is in relation to the administration of the tertiary allowance scheme. This scheme was one of this Government’s initiatives and for that it deserves, I suppose, to be commended, but for the way in which the program itself is being administered the Government deserves only to be condemned. I point out that I have drawn to the attention of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) that I proposed to raise certain matters in this grievance debate today and he has indicated that he is proposing to have made certain notes on the questions that I raise in order that he may consider them later tonight.

The tertiary allowance scheme is one in which the administration has practically broken down. There are tremendous delays in terms of considering student entitlements to benefits under the program and the administration has been organised in such a way as only to encumber the ability of students to be able to receive benefits under the program. I am told that even now there are many students who are receiving only at this late date the benefits to which they would otherwise have been entitled. The scheme has been the subject of considerable public discussion. I note that a report has been tabled on the tertiary education assistance scheme which I understand is to be known as the Williams report after the name of the chairman of the inquiry. The parts that I want to refer to relate not to the benefits that students are entitled to, although I might well be critical of the adequacy of those benefits and I might well be critical of amounts that are being made available under this Budget to students who, along with other people, have suffered a good deal as a result of inflation and have not in any way been aided by the Budget that has been presented. I want to refer to the comments of the Australian Union of Students in relation to the appeals tribunals. The Students Union had this to say about the appeals tribunals in general:

AUS is concerned at the time taken for the Appeals Tribunals to be set up. The appointments to the Tribunals have still not been made public, and the machinery is still unclear.

Of equal concern is that the Tribunals will offer little in the way of appeal, as they will be so hampered by the rigidity of the present regulations.

AUS believes that the Appeals Tribunals should operate to interpret the principles of TEAS- of providing finance to students in economic need- rather than restating the regulations. Consequently, the Appeals Tribunals need to have discretionary powers, otherwise they cease to function as an appeals body.

The Williams report has made no comments on the appeals structure. The student assistance regulations are the statutory rules of 1974 No. 1 79. There are 9 1 regulations and they are, in my view, cumbersome, difficult to read and to understand and certainly to be able to use these regulations in considering one’s entitlement under them a person would need to have considerable legal training, in my view.

In the time available to me in this debate I would like to take honourable members through the provisions of the Students Assistance Act, particularly divisions 2, 3 and 4 which provide for the student assistance review tribunals. The tribunals were established under section 18 to review allowances under the regulations. Division 3 provides for requests for reconsideration or review of decisions and it sets out the basis upon which a dissatisfied person should seek to have an authorised person review his entitlement. After a certain period of time if the authorised person decides against the request a person who is aggrieved may lodge a request for the matter to be referred to a tribunal. Upon receipt by an authorised person of a request under section 23 for a review by the tribunal of the decision of the authorised person he shall forward the request to the chairman of the tribunal, together with all the records and other papers relevant to the decision and its reconsideration by the authorised person.

The manner of taking proceedings before the Tribunal are set out in sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, but I particularly want to refer honourable members to the procedure of the tribunal because it is required to be informal in its deliberations. Section 27(1) says:

In the exercise of its powers and functions in relation to the review by a Tribunal of a decision referred to it-

the procedure of the Tribunal is, subject to this Act and to the regulations, within the discretion of the Tribunal;

It is absolutely discretionary as to how the tribunal shall consider its own functioning. The section goes on:

  1. the proceedings shall be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expedition as the requirements of this Act and the regulations, and a proper consideration of matters and questions before the Tribunal, permit; and

I have already referred to the considerable delay. The section continues:

  1. the Tribunal is not bound by rules of evidence.

    1. A party to proceedings before a Tribunal may, whether or not he is present or represented, make submissions to the Tribunal in writing.
    2. A copy of any submission so made shall be furnished to the other party to the proceedings.

A party cannot be represented by a legal practitioner, notwithstanding the 91 regulations to which I have referred. I raise these matters because I want to refer particularly to the case of Robert Stephen Llewelyn of Marrickville. He was a student. The initial decision, as described in the public document being the particulars of the request for review No. 158 of 1975, was as follows:

Mr Llewelyn was ruled ineligible for benefits in 1975 because he had studied in his course for the maximum number of years required to complete it and had not done so. This was modified on reconsideration and he was ruled ineligible because he was half a year behind normal progress.

This decision and the request for review were put before the Board on 23 July 1975. The Tribunal considered the matters raised by the authorised person in the first instance. The reasons for the decision of the Tribunal were given as follows:

The authorised person ruled Mr Llewelyn as ineligible under Regulation 34 ( 1 ) (h) (vii) because he had studied in his course for the maximum number of years required to complete it and had not done so. At the hearing the authorised person resiled from this decision but contended that Mr Llewelyn was not eligible because of Regulation 44.

In other words, this young gentleman was subjected to something that no court of law would ever accept, and that is trial by ambush by the Department of Education. He was led to believe that his application was to be rejected under Regulation 34. He prepared his case on that basis. But at the hearing the authorised person came up and said: ‘No, it is not that Regulation about which we are concerned; it is now Regulation 44.’ Without adjourning the hearings, without considering other matters that might have been placed before the Tribunal by the student, it went on to deliberate on the matters put before it by the authorised person under Regulation 44. It decided:

  1. . the decision of the authorised person must be varied to decide that he is not entitled to a living allowance by virtue of Regulation 44.

In other words, the Tribunal decided that he was entitled under Regulation 34 but, on reconsideration, as requested, in the trial by ambush, this young gentleman was not entitled to a living allowance under Regulation 44.

I am informed- I am not one who readily understands these regulations- that under Regulation 44 if certain information had been put before the Tribunal by this gentleman’s teachers it may have been decided another way. But the decision has been taken. There is no further avenue of appeal. These informal proceedings, which had no legal basis, which are in the discretion of the Tribunal, quite clearly can wreak of injustices of this nature. I believe that that has occurred. Regulation 44 says:

Living allowance is not payable in respect of a grantee who is undertaking, or proposes to undertake, in the relevant year less than three-quarters of a year’s work for a student engaged in full-time studies in that part, or those parts, of the approved course that the grantee is undertaking in that year.

It was alleged that he was undertaking only onehalf of the work load for the third year in which he was studying but I am informed that his academic advisers indicated, and would have indicated to the Tribunal had he been given an opportunity to bring forward that evidence, that it was in fact a full year’s work load that he was undertaking. This is a grave injustice. I believe that the procedures we have are inadequate to provide a proper method of review for people aggrieved in this way.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I rise to draw attention to the material which I and no doubt other members of Parliament have received from the Car Consumers Association of Victoria. I understand that the Association has a branch in

Sydney also, and I am pleased to represent it in Western Australia. This particular publication is titled The Secret Repair Policies of Car Manufacturers. It draws attention to a public notice that was published in the Age in Melbourne on Thursday, 15 May 1975 by the Association. It relates to Holden and Torana owners and says:

Car Consumers’ Association wishes to advise owners of the existence of a GMH policy relating to the extension of cover of Trimatic Transmissions from 12 months, 12 000 miles to 3 years, SO 000 miles. This policy only applies to vehicles built before June 1974 fitted with Trimatic Transmissions. If need of such a cover arises, contact your GMH dealer.

It has been drawn to my attention that up to 500 000 consumers who have bought these vehicles over 6 years could be eligible but unaware of this policy. So I can understand why this has been termed a secret repair policy.

I am also given to understand that these repair policies apply to other makes of vehicles. I feel that there must be some way in which to give wide publicity to this situation as in up to 60 per cent of Holdens fitted with Trimatic Transmissions faults have occurred and the usual repair cost of the Trimatic can be between $325 and $375, and perhaps more in some States. This is particularly appalling for the average working man who is faced with the cost of repair of one of these transmissions. Usually he trades his vehicle in and changes his car because he cannot meet the cost of repair. Today most repairers demand the vehicle or the cash. That is the attitude they take. I am not making an attack on General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd because, as a Volvo owner, I am aware that in some cases they want the cash or the car. They do extend credit to some people but in most cases one finds that there are no credit facilities available and the only solution is to purchase another vehicle on hire purchase. This is not really the owner’s responsibility but that of the manufacturer. Perhaps one reason why the manufacturer has not made the owner aware of this policy is that he could be the second or third owner of the car. But the cost to the consumer of this secret policy- I will continue to call it a secret policy- is tremendous. I hope that the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) will be able to develop a system whereby people are made aware of their rights in these circumstances.

I would like to draw attention to another point which has been raised by the Car Consumers Association, lt is quite a serious matter and one which has received some publicity, but unfortunately not sufficient publicity. There could be up to half a million GMH cars on the road today with lethal steering locks. The Car Consumers Association newsletter says:

Reports to CCA of the anti-theft steering lock in HQ model Holdens suddenly locking on unintentionally and bringing about an accident were confirmed on 6 June 1974 when a Wagga Coroner investigating the road death of a 19 year old girl said he agreed with a motor mechanic that the steering lock system on the HQ Holden was unsatisfactory. The motor mechanic had told the Coroner’s Court that he considered the system unsafe and that it could be a trap for a driver not familiar with the mechanism.

In the case of the girl ‘s fatality the steering lock had locked on as the driver turned off the ignition. However, in the case of 2 reports to CCA, the driver is positive that he had not touched the ignition key at the time the steering lock activated. In one of these two incidents the Holden careered uncontrollably onto a footpath while in the other the car was being driven alongside the winding Murray River at the time of the occurrence and only good luck prevented the vehicle from careering into the river.

On 8 June 1974 a GMH official, while describing the key movement needed to select the ‘lock’ position, was quoted in the Sun as saying: ‘This is clearly set out in the owner’s handbook, which emphasises that the lock position should never be selected while the vehicle is moving’. The Sun then quoted the official as saying that ‘switching off the ignition while moving could be dangerous, particularly on hilly and winding roads’.

What a fatuous sort of statement to make about the information being published in the owners handbook! A vehicle is sold to the owner, driven by members of his family and then driven by the following buyer and the handbook is not always passed on. It is not sufficient to publish a warning in a handbook and expect that everybody will read that handbook and take cognisance of it. It is estimated that approximately 500 000 HQ Holdens and LJ Toranas which have this dangerous steering lock are still on the road today. If General Motors Holden ‘s has quietly taken some action to correct this problem I will be happy to hear about it. After almost 2Vi years during which the HQ Holden was producedthat is from July 1971 to the end of 1973-the cars are still fitted with this hazard. Judging from the GMH service letter from which I quoted earlier a revised design of the steering lock providing for a more positive detent was not introduced until about the end of 1973.

These cars are getting older, cheaper and more readily available, and no doubt they are more worn and more dangerous. I feel sure it would be a step in the right direction towards national road safety if GMH were to recall those locks or to make available to dealers and to service stations throughout Australia the facility at their cost to solve the problem. It is only a matter of time before these half a million GMH vehicles which are affected will cause more deaths, injuries and suffering unless the recall is made. It is no good saying that there are not sufficient reports of this type of accident to warrant such actions. It is not one which people would closely investigate. If somebody had switched off the ignition there is no guarantee that they would admit to it because of insurance problems and because of their fear that the insurance company would not pay out on the ground of the negligence of the driver. This is another aspect of the matter.

If there is an inbuilt defect it is the manufacturer’s responsibility, no matter how old the vehicle is. Once the defect is discovered I feel it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to take some positive action to make sure that all the vehicles are modified. To emphasise the point and to show the impact and the horror of such a thing I shall describe a further accident which arose out of this type of defect. It involves a family which was travelling along a straight stretch of country road early one Sunday morning. The driver wanted something from the glove box but it was locked. Noting the straight road and as there was no other traffic he slowed to about 30 miles per hour, turned the ignition off and handed the keys to his wife. Perhaps it was wrong to do that. But how many people do that type of thing? I would like honourable members to think about this. However, they soon neared a slight curve in the road where a bridge went over an irrigation canal. The driver turned the wheel to take the curve but the steering had locked when the ignition was turned off.

The car failed to take the slight curve, went through the bridge into the canal and began to sink. Two of the bridge railings went through the car. One went between the driver and his small son who was in the middle of the- front seat. It went on and badly gashed the head of his little girl in the back and finally lodged in the camper van which the car was towing. The other railings went through the glove box, knocked out the heater, narrowly missing the mother in the front seat and another son in the back. Fortunately, the family escaped with their lives, although 18 stitches had to be inserted in the gash in the little girl’s head. The car was a write-off. The family was extremely lucky. A tow truck driver who dived into the canal to rescue some of the family belongings said that he was unable to touch the bottom. These are the sorts of things which are possibly happening every day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

-On 3 June I spoke against the granting of visas by Australia to members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I did so because that body still remains committed to the destruction of Israel by force. During the parliamentary recess 2 further developments occurred which lead me to raise the matter again. First of all, a statement was made by the gentleman to whom I referred on 3 June, Mr Gamal el-Surani, who was the man to whom the visa was granted. In the Age of Saturday, 14 June, there is a report from Hobart which, in part, reads as follows:

Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, Gamal elSurani, says only his age has prevented him from physically fighting for the PLO cause. Mr el-Surani, head of the PLO headquarters in Cairo, said in Hobart yesterday his role was with the organisation’s political wing, and, as such, he knew nothing of the military division’s activities ‘until after they happened’.

But he supported such events as the Munich Olympic Village massacre and said he regarded the PLO members who had been killed in such incidents as ‘martyrs’ and ‘national heros’

The report continues:

During the Press conference he said he was ‘very hopeful’ of Australia opening diplomatic relations with the PLO and that his talks with Government officials on this subject had been received well. But he did not discount the possibility that if Australia refused to grant such ties it would be considered by the PLO as an enemy and open to attack.

This ought to come as no surprise to us. It is consistent with the sort of thing said by Mr Yasser Arafat at the United Nations and elsewhere. There has been no denial and no accusation that that was in any way a misreporting of what Mr el-Surani said. He was here for quite some days after that report. Mr el-Surani ‘s trip surely proved to the PLO that the Australian Government, by granting the visa, was in fact encouraging its terrorism and its policy of the destruction of the sovereign state of Israel. After having had an audience with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) Mr el-Surani said he was hopeful that there would soon be an office in Australia.

The other matter which concerns me relates to the attitude of the Australian Government to the recognition of the PLO at international forums. The Government’s ineptitude regarding the admission of the PLO to observer status at the United Nations and at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has been widely condemned for similar reasons to those which related to the granting of visas to PLO representatives. If the PLO dropped its demands for the destruction of the state of Israel all would agree that it ought to be heard. Similar action to that taken by the United Nations and UNESCO has been taken by the International

Civil Aviation Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the World Meteorological Organisation Conference. Again in those instances Australia has taken action which encouraged rather than moderated the PLO policy for the destruction of Israel.

At the International Labour Organisation Conference in Geneva on 12 June this year the Austraiian Government voted for a motion to allow liberation movements recognised by the Organisation of African Unity and the League of Arab States to attend the conference. The PLO, being one of the liberation movements recognised by the OAU and by the League of Arab States, was able to attend and participate in the deliberations of the International Labour Organisation Conference while still being pledged to destroy a member of the ILO, namely, Israel. The motion as it was put before the conference was subject to considerable debate. Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Labor Party and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, along with union delegates from other democratic countries, moved an amendment requiring that all those seeking admission to the ILO should agree to abide by the rules and principles of the ILO. One would not think that that was an unreasonable request.

This would have enabled the PLO and Israel to co-exist at the ILO. But that also would have required that the PLO drop its demand about the destruction of an ILO member, Israel. The Australian Government, to its eternal shame, accepted the report recommending the admission of the PLO to the ILO. The Australian Government delegate explained the vote in words which are very far from being explanatory. He stated:

The Australian Government delegation had hoped that it would have been possible for what has been referred to as a compromise formula to have emerged either in the committee or at this Plenary Session so that this matter could have been adopted by an overwhelming consensus which would have recognised the principles which were embodied in the compromise proposals which were under discussion. This did not prove possible, and therefore my delegation voted in favour of each of the proposals before the Conference.

The Australian Government, by its attitude, ran away from principle. It ran away from its own trade union movement and from the Australian Labor Party President. It also ran away from integrity. Contrast the Australian Government’s attitude with the attitude of the United States Government delegate. On 21 June of this year the New York Times editorialised on the matter in these words:

The American delegation walked out, calling the vote a tragic decision because the PLO was a political, not a labour, entity under the ILO chaner. And the American position was made official by Secretary of Labor John Dunlop, who had planned to address the Conference but refused to attend after the vote to seat the PLO.

UNESCO itself has already suffered. Some of its important programs are imperiled because the United States and other concerned nations have properly resisted making contributions to the agency while it violates its mandate and tradition of nonpartisanship.

One should add that one of the consequences of the admission of the PLO to the ILO will be that the United States again will deny its contribution to the ILO budget- its contribution, if my memory serves me correctly, is about one-quarter of the budget- and that will greatly handicap the work of that international agency, the point being that the PLO is not a labour entity and has no right at the ILO in the first place. The editorial in the New York Times- rios is a most important point- continued:

The United States contributes a significant amount of funding to the specialised agencies, in some instances as much as a quarter of their total budgets. The $ 1 6m contribution to UNESCO has been held up, the $29m for WHO in next year’s authorization measure has also been delayed. A large group of members of Congress have warned WHO’s director-general that expulsion of Israel would undermine support and confidence in the international health organization.

It has become clear that the Arab bloc- the greatest beneficiaries, along with the Third World nations, of UN aid and expertise- is willing to risk destruction of the specialised agencies even if this means depriving millions of people, including its own, of health, welfare, educational and other direct assistance. And too many shortsighted members of the UN, prey to Arab petro-politics, have acquiesced or abstained when the agencies are locked into positions that degrade the organisation ‘s charter and covenants.

It is most important that the Australian people are given an explanation of the Austraiian Government’s attitude towards the Palestine Liberation Organisation. How does the admission of the PLO to United Nations agencies advance the prospects of peace in the Middle East? How does it improve the operations of the United Nations? How does it serve Australia’s national interests? How does it advance harmony within Australia? We have seen campus riots. We have had peaceful petitions to this Parliament. There have been letters to the Prime Minister which have been unheeded. The Australian people are entitled to an explanation of the Government’s policy on this matter.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

-My grievance today, I am sure, will receive the support of every member of this House, whatever his party affiliation. I should like to say a few words about the anonymous letter writer and the anonymous telephone caller. I do not believe that there is any person in this community more despicable than the one who makes anonymous telephone calls or writes anonymous letters. There would be hardly one member of this House who has not at some time received an anonymous abusive letter or telephone call, albeit the odd one here and there. But there are within the community people who are being subjected to a continuous stream of abuse from anonymous letter writers and telephone callers.

Of course politicians are not the only butt for these people. I am well aware, as you probably are, Mr Deputy Speaker, that some of the people who make these calls or write these letters are medically sick; but there are also others who, for one reason or another, support a cause and believe that they have the right because they support a cause differing from one’s own, to intrude anonymously into one’s life. Scarcely anyone who is in the public eye or who receives a certain amount of publicity is free from this type of rubbish. Recently I have come into contact with this practice personally, and I do not like it. During the last 2 election campaigns I became accustomed to going without sleep. For some odd reason people started telephoning my house at 1 o’clock in the morning and they would telephone through until 6 o’clock in the morning. Eventually I got a telephone I could unplug. But did that unnamed caller or those unnamed callers consider my elderly father for whom sleep was a brief interlude without pain? They did not at all. I became accustomed to that practice. It is a political thing and one learns to live with it. But what I will not become accustomed to is the way in which an anonymous letter writer or telephone caller can prey on people within the community to the very severe detriment of their health.

I suppose that what really brought this to my mind was one middle aged woman in my electorate who was driven almost to suicide by people who were telephoning- it seemed to be a bit of a campaign- impugning her morals. She was a very nervous little thing. When I found her she was almost at the stage of suicide. We got her an unlisted number which cut off the problem. But one cannot cut off what is in the minds of people who do things such as this. Some problems cannot be as easily solved and they cause real suffering. I have a friend who receives abusive letters every time her name or her photograph appears in the Press and another friend who, when she answers the telephone- it rings very oftensometimes hears only heavy breathing. These things may sound unimportant, but to the recipient they can cause real suffering and pain.

I shall address myself for a couple of minutes to those who send me anonymous letters and make anonymous telephone calls to me. I hold them in supreme contempt. In my opinion they are completely without integrity and completely without guts. I am prepared to receive any letter or any call of criticism; indeed, I will protect the right of the individual to criticise me. But that individual has to sign his name to the letter or to give his name over the telephone. My staff is instructed to hang up on anyone who will not say who is calling before he starts speaking. We do not read anonymous letters. We look at the end. If there is not a signature we put the letter in the waste paper basket. So, such people are wasting their time. I do not receive many abusive letters, but my advice to anyone being abused is to follow my example. The anonymous letter writer is sick. Also he does not have the courage of his convictions; if he did he would want to debate his grievance. He is the cowardly type who wants to hit and run. My office is open to anyone who wants to come into it. I am committed to my philosophy of living. I am committed to my political Party and its policies. But I am prepared to discuss and to debate them with anyone, quite freely and openly- that is, anyone with a name.

There is no one harder to fight than the one who hits and runs. No accident arouses more public hostility than the one caused by the hit and run driver. That is the type of person with whom the anonymous letter writer belongs. What satisfaction he can get from shooting an arrow into the air without knowing whether it will hit its mark, I do not know. I also do not know what satisfaction he gets from making unfounded accusations from an anonymous position. It is time some of these people grew up and had enough maturity to promote some discussion on whatever their grievance is out in the open. There is very little that cannot be discussed. Most of us respect those who open the lines of communication and discussion, even if we completely disagree with what the other person has to say. In my opinion the anonymous letter writer is a cowardly and gutless person. I hope that a few of those who have been making the calls or writing the letters are listening to this debate. They might take a hint from what I have had to say.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– During the recess I took the opportunity of visiting central Australia and northern Australia. I did this for 2 reasons. I wanted to see something of the resources and nature of the place and I wanted to get a further insight into what is happening to the Aboriginal population. On that second point I shall say nothing at this moment although I hope I shall have an opportunity of saying something later.

I want now to say something about the nature of the place and the possibilities that lie inherent in it. As honourable members, would agree, I think, a great part of Australia’s economic future is bound up with its mineral industry, its mineral products and its mineral exports. I think that this is something which needs to be developed as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible. I want to draw to the attention of the House the possibilities that he inherent in the centre of Australia and some of the things which we should be doing and putting in hand in regard to them. I hope I shall be constructive in this regard. A large part of the centre of Australia- it may amount even to a quarter of the continent- is covered by a fairly thin and recent layer of sand. Sometimes the rocks stick up from this layer but over many hundreds of miles there is no indication of what lies under the surface. Yet that surface is covered by only a few feet of sand. Some of that surface contains potentially valuable mineral areas. I refer particularly to the old rocks, the pre-Cambrian, the protozoic and even perhaps the archaeozoic rocks which underlie the surface. We do not know what they are. We do not know in detail what they are like. We do know something about their age. From the rocks which stick up from the surface from time to time we can get some vague idea of what lies under that shallow sand surface. It would help us if we knew more, if we knew the rocks and if we knew the dip of the rocks. Sometimes, of course, the valuable ores will stand out because they are harder than the folded rocks which surround them. A good example of this would be at Broken Hill or even, indeed, at Mt Isa. In other cases the valuable rocks are not hard. They are soft shales which will not stand out.

I believe that this is the time when we should be doing something about the delineation of these areas. May I say, with satisfaction, that we found the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics actively working in this area. We found its people trying to identify the rock outcrops. I have a great deal of time and admiration for the work which is being done by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. I am not trying to criticise it. I am trying to say that more should be given to that body and that we should be going on with it in a faster way.

I believe the first thing to do is a certain amount of drilling. As honourable members will know, a large number of drills are idle at present in Australia. They fall, I suppose, into 4 classes. The shallow drill was used for seismic work, for putting down shot holes and the like. It is a truck mounted drill which goes only to shallow depths and is very light. Second is the diamond drill which is used for exploring ore bodies. Third is the deep stratigraphic drill which is used for oil drilling. It can put down a really deep hole on land. Fourth is, or used to be at any rate, the drill which is capable of operating off-shore. In the first 3 categories we have idle resources and we used to have idle skilled teams. We have not got them now because they have been dissipated by reason of the under-use of our facilities.

I would like to see a drilling program really put in hand not just on particular targets but in order to ascertain the nature of the sedimentary basins and the old rocks which are not sedimentary or old folded rocks but which are in very old sedimentary areas in Australia. In that way we can learn something about our mineral potential. This is the time to do it because we do have idle machinery. The sooner we start building up our skilled teams again, the better. I would think, for example, that in these areas covered by this shallow sand film we should be using our shot hole drills which were used in the seismic program in determining the depth of the sand and roughly what is underneath. By use of coreing one can find out and by use of dip meters one can find out the lie of the strata and be able to ascertain what is happening. In selective areas we should be putting down our diamond drills and finding out more. In order to find the main structure of the continent we should be using our deep drills onshore to find out the nature of the underlying basins to great depths.

I want, in the next few months, to try to get a program of this kind accepted. I shall be trying in the next few months to find out what can be done and what resources can be devoted to it. Again I want to commend what the Bureau of Mineral Resources is doing. I do not want to criticise the Bureau. I want to say that it should be getting further resources and that the program of drilling, particularly in the centre of Australia, should be very much stepped up. This will help- I say this incidentally- the Aboriginal communities. One of the things which will be discovered is the extent of our water resources and underground water. In this area there is plenty of rough feed. I know this is a particularly good season but I think that even in normal seasons there would be rough feed. There is virtually no naked animal life because there is no surface water. If we can find out from this drilling where water can be found and easily brought to the surface we may be able to help the life of some of these Aboriginal communities. I put this as a side issue.

The first point I make is that at this time we should be using our unused drilling resources and, once more, building up our skilled drilling teams in the 3 categories: The shot hole drill, which will go down and pierce, for example, a thin sand film; the diamond drill which will tell us more in detail; and the deep stratigraphic drill which will determine the nature of our main basins. There is much we do not know.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) in the debate this morning made some allegations which certainly deserve to be answered. I propose to answer them in part now and give a more detailed reply on the adjournment debate this evening, if I am able to exercise my privilege in that regard.

The honourable member made a number of allegations. I simply say in respect of his allegation about Ministers failing to answer questions that if there is any deficiency in my own Department I will certainly give attention to it. I do believe that this is a matter that can be considered. I think all honourable members will appreciate, after all, that the number of questions coming from honourable members is growing as the activities of this Government expand. In other words, there are more areas now about which to ask questions than there were previously. I am advised by the longest serving member of this Parliament, the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), that what has happened is nothing new and that there were occasions in the past when questions were simply wiped off the notice paper. In his long service, lengthy delays were experienced under the Liberal-Country Party Government. But there is a matter that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. That is the criticism by the honourable member of the National Employment and Training Scheme.

This re-training scheme was introduced by the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, the present Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron). That scheme will stand as a monument to his name. This was the first Government even to consider seriously the introduction of a re-training scheme. Certainly there have been delays. Of course there are delays in having some of the applications finalised. The reason for such delays is very simple indeed. When the scheme was announced, there was a virtual flood of applicants, such a flood of applicants as to indicate the unsatisfied need of this community over a generation for retraining. People who are applying include those who have not had the opportunity to be trained in their youth, who have not had the opportunity to have a reasonable education, new settlers to this country, migrants from other parts of the world who have not had the opportunity to be trained in the skills required in this community. It ill behoves a former Liberal-Country Party Minister whose Government presided over the years of neglect in this field, to come along now and to criticise this Government for the deficiencies which may exist in the initial stages of an exciting scheme which will satisfy a great community and economic need for Australia.

Let me illustrate my point by referring to what we saw on many occasions in respect of unemployment figures during the reign of office of the Liberal-Country Party Government. There was unemployment amongst unskilled workers and shortages of skilled employees. This situation arose because there was a massive imbalance in the Australian work force. That massive imbalance grew up in the years of neglect from 1949 to 1972. ‘The generation of neglect’ it will be known as and will be so described by historians. We had a situation almost with great regularity in which there was unemployment amongst unskilled employees and a shortage of skilled employees. This is an unfortunate, regrettable fact

It is not appropriate for the honourable member for Curtin to launch a criticism against this scheme. In my view, it also is in very poor taste for the honourable member to make an attack on those who are doing their best to administer this scheme. They have been subjected to severe difficulties indeed in trying to cope with the large number of people seeking assistance. But I should say this: Those who are presently applying for retraining under NEAT are receiving very prompt attention indeed. This is done at great expense and personal cost to the officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration who are working very hard to administer the scheme. The delays to which the honourable member referred are in respect of people who have appealed against decisions ruling them ineligible to participate in the NEAT scheme at this time. This Government could not possibly hope to be able to satisfy the demands which have built up over 23 years. We will eventually have a scheme whereby every citizen who wants to be re-trained will be able to be trained to acquire greater skills. We will do this because it is a job that needs to be done. This nation needs to do it. But it will take time. Nobody could reasonably suggest that such a mammoth and massive task could be undertaken without friction or without delay. As I said,

I will take the opportunity if I am able this evening to reply on the adjournment debate in some detail to these allegations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It is now 15 minutes to 1 o’clock and, in accordance with standing order 106, the debate is interrupted. I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 400

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werri wa · ALP

– I move-

That the resolution of this House of 1 August 1974 concerning the participation by the Australian Parliament in the Constitutional Convention be amended as follows:

1 ) Paragraphs ( 1 ) ( b) and (2) (c) omit ‘The Australian Country Party’, substitute ‘The National Country Party of Australia’.

Paragraph (2) (b) omit ‘The Right Honourable B. M. Snedden, Q C.’, substitute ‘The Honourable J. M. Fraser’.

On 1 August 1974 1 moved that this House: . . affirms the decision taken by resolution of the House on 31 May 1973 that the Australian Parliament join with the parliaments of the States in the Constitutional Convention to be convened to review the Australian Constitution in September of that year, and at such subsequent times as the Convention from time to time determined . . .

That motion also proposed the composition of that portion of the delegation from this House. Since that time there have been certain changes with respect to the Opposition, namely, the Australian Country Party has become the National Country Party of Australia and there has also been a change in the leadership of the Opposition. In order to take account of these changes I have therefore moved that the resolution of this House of 1 August 1974 concerning the participation by the Australian Parliament in the Constitutional Convention be amended as follows:

  1. Paragraphs ( 1 ) (b) and (2) (c) omit ‘The Australian Country Party’, substitute ‘The National Country Party of Australia’.
  2. Paragraph (2) (b) omit ‘The Right Honourable B. M. Snedden, Q.C, substitute ‘The Honourable J. M. Fraser’.
Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

- Mr Speaker, the Opposition Parties welcome the change in approach by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) which enables the Constitutional Convention to be held in September, and welcomes therefore the motion that he has moved. The Opposition Parties, as this House knows, endorsed the initiative of the States for a Convention in 1972. It is our hope that this Convention will be a useful forum in which State and Federal representatives may constructively consider constitutional reform in a way which will advance the good government of Australia. There are changes which can be made to the Constitution for the improved working of the Federal system. Real difficulties have obviously been involved in this. There have been difficulties in obtaining the agreement of this Parliament in respect of the measures which ought to be put, on the precise changes needed, and in persuading the people of Australia of the benefits of such changes even sometimes when both Government and Opposition Parties officially have agreed on those changes in this House. There have, however, been too many hasty and ill-considered initiatives which have led to rejection of referendum proposals. I do not think they serve anyone’s purpose. They waste the time of the Parliament and of the people.

The Constitutional Convention does present an opportunity to identify areas where change is needed. It will ascertain what sort of consensus exists for change. It will provide a place where constructive efforts may be made to work out constitutional reform. For all of these reasons, the Opposition is glad that the Constitutional Convention will be reconvened in Melbourne in September. The Opposition of course recognises that the Convention itself cannot make any constitutional change. However, it can be the base from which constructive proposals can emerge. The Senate’s resolution makes the way clear for the Convention to proceed. The Opposition Parties welcome the opportunities that the Convention offers.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– in reply- I would not want the House or the public to draw any inferences from the phrase which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) used about the change of attitude by the Government. The fact is that the Government has consistently taken the attitude that the Australian Parliament should participate in this Constitutional Convention. I believe it was I who moved the motion on 3 1 May 1973 that the Parliament should participate in the Convention. It was certainly I who moved the motion on 1 August last year which I recalled when moving my motion today. The Government has been committed all along to participation in the Convention. The delay has taken place in the Senate.

Honourable gentlemen should be reminded that the matter has arisen twice in the Senate. Last August the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) moved that the Senate should send some of its members to the Convention, as it had done in September 1973.

Under that motion there were to be 3 members of the Australian Labor Party, one member of the Liberal Party of Australia, one member of the Australian Country Party and one member of the Liberal Movement. In the previous Parliament the delegation had been 3 members of the Labor Party, one member of the Liberal Party, one member of the Country Party and one member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. The change to the appointment of a member of the Liberal Movement instead of a member of the DLP was due to the fact that there were no longer members of the DLP in the Parliament but there was a member of the Liberal Movement who had been acknowledged by the Senate as the Leader of a Party.

Mr Killen:

– We do not have any permanency in this place, do we?

Mr WHITLAM:

– None of us. I am merely quoting what the Senate acknowledged. It is plain looking at any copy of the Senate Hansard since July or August of last year that Senator Steele Hall has been acknowledged to be the Leader of a Party. So the Government moved last July or August- I think it was last Augustthat Senator Steele Hall should take the place of the former DLP senator who had represented the Senate at the Convention. An amendment was moved to delete Senator Steele Hall from the delegation and put in a second member of the Liberal Party. The amendment was put and defeated on an even division. The motion was then put and defeated on an even division. There the matter stayed until, as a result of negotiations in which I participated, it was again raised in the Senate. The same motion was put on behalf of the Government and the same amendment was moved to it. On that occasion the amendment was carried and, becoming the motion, the motion was carried.

I have gone into that detail in order to refute the suggestion which has been made on many occasions- I think it was implied by the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion; it has certainly been the subject of newspaper articlesthat in some way the Australian Government was impeding the meeting of the Convention. In fact the Australian Government took the earliest opportunity in every case to put the motion in this House, through myself, and in the Senate, through the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that the Australian Parliament should participate in the Convention. Later, as a result of negotiations that took place outside the House, that motion was again put in the Senate. There has been no change of attitude on the part of the Australian Government. We believe that the Australian Parliament should participate in the Convention.

There were a couple of other matters mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition to which I should respond. He referred to referendums. Four referendums were put to the people last May. Three of those referendums flowed directly and entirely from the recommendations- most of them unanimous recommendations- of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review that were made back in 1958 and 1959. The fourth referendum- the one concerning local governmentflowed from undertakings which I had made in the election campaign in 1972 and to local government representatives in Australia in January 1973.

The honourable gentleman then referred to some other matters which I believe show some confusion in the ranks of those behind him or their colleagues in other Parliaments. The fact is that there has been a difference of attitude between the Liberals- Federal and State- on many of the matters which have come before this Parliament by way of Bills. It is significant that in this Parliament, including in the Senate, there has not been opposition by way of a vote to programs which have, however, been challenged in the courts by State Liberal governments. Quite obviously things like the Australian Assistance Plan, which has been challenged by State Liberal governments, and the Regional Employment Development scheme, which has been challenged by State governments, were not in fact opposed here. The Government believes in these matters. It pursues them. I believe that it comes ill from the Leader of the Opposition that he should raise here matters which have been challenged not by him and his colleagues but by their counterparts in the State Parliaments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER (WannonLeader of the Opposition)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. I would not have risen if the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had not involved politics in a matter which one would have hoped could have been approached in a reasonably bipartisan mannerthe Constitutional Convention. If agreements are going to be reached on some matters they are going to be agreements that are reached between the various parties not for the purpose of dividing but for the purpose of uniting Australia.

Mr Whitlam:

– Where is the misrepresentation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The point of misrepresentation is that if on the first occasion the motion was put in the Senate for membership of the delegation the Government had accepted the view that it accepted the last time the motion was put in the Senate the Convention could have proceeded many months ago.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa -Prime Minister) I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker. In fact the Constitutional Convention could not have proceeded last year not just because the Senate could not agree on a delegation from the Australian Parliament but because there was at least one other Parliament- the Queensland Parliament- which also had not agreed to send a delegation to the Convention. It did not do so until well into this year. My comments were devoted entirely to refuting the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that there has been a change of attitude by the Government. The Government has always done all it can to see that the Parliament participated in the Convention.

page 402

DEFENCE FORCE RE-ORGANIZATION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 20 August.

Clauses 5 and 6- by leave- taken together.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-When this Bill was in Committee last evening I asked the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison)- I thought, in terms of politeness and reason- to give the Committee an explanation of why the nomenclature in many parts of the Bill had been altered. It was not as though one were indulging in some captious form of criticism. The request was made with politeness and reason. But the Minister was emboldened to embark upon a course that I can only describe as not doing himself justice as a gentleman and as a Minister of the Crown. But let us put to one side his exuberance of spirit and come to the explanation that he has offered. I think that the Committee, the Parliament and the country are entitled to an explanation when alterations of these characters are made. I ask the Minister again whether he would mind adverting to this matter.

I am not going to argue the merits of the stand that I take. What I am submitting to the Committee is that the stand taken by the Government is tainted with illegality. ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is the proper term to be used. The term

Australia’ is not. I speak now in the constitutional sense. I gave the Minister section after section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. But what was the reason given by the Minister last evening? I ask the honourable members to listen to it. He said:

The reason why the definition of Commonwealth is excluded from the new Bill is that the definition of Commonwealth in the old legislation said:

The Commonwealth’ includes the territories of the Commonwealth to which this Act extends.

In point of fact, the section which is being amended by the clause presendy under consideration reads as follows:

This Act shall extend to the Territories of the Commonwealth as if each of those Territories were pan of the Commonwealth.

What is the Minister putting in its place? He is putting in this:

This Act extends to the external Territories as if each of those Territories were part of Australia.

I am not asking this in any sense of obstinacy. If the Government wants to behave like a collection of gypsies, it will be treated as such. During the Minister’s speech last night I interjected;

Like Christmas Island.

I ask honourable members to listen to the extraordinary statement that the Minister made in reply to my interjection. He said:

The honourable gentleman would be very much aware that Christmas Island is not a territory of the Commonwealth.

I think it is about time he brought himself up to date. The former honourable member for Stirling, Mr Webb, is the Administrator of Christmas Island. Christmas Island, whether the Minister likes it or not, is a Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia. If that is the basis of the honourable gentleman’s argument, it does not dismiss or diminish our anxiety on the point; on the contrary, it heightens it. I ask the honourable gentleman- I trust that if I offend him in any way at all he will draw my attention to it- in terms of simple civility: Will he please give the Committee a reason why the term ‘Commonwealth’ is being dropped throughout the Bill. If the Minister would do that, I think we would be able to make progress at a pace that might even bring pleasure to his frame.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) will be very much aware of the drafting practices of the present Government which relate definitions to ‘Australia’. For this reason and the reason I gave hitherto, we do not consider it necessary to hold the term ‘Commonwealth ‘ in every part of the Bill.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 7.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-Clause 7 is what I described last evening as the central feature of this Bill. It seeks to repeal sections 8, 9 and 9a of the principal Act, namely, the Defence Act. That central feature is the purported conferment upon a Chief of Defence Force Staff of command of the Defence Force. Again I asked, during the course of my speech in the second reading debate, whether the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) would give an explanation of the apparent conflict- I put it no harsher than that- with section 68 of the Constitution. I do not take the view that this legislative flourish can put at nought the constitutional provisions which exist in section 68 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.

But let us put that to one side. I want to come to the exceptions in proposed section 9a, of which sub-section ( 1 ) states:

Subject to section 8, the Secretary - meaning the Secretary of the Department of Defence- and the Chief of Defence Force Staff shall jointly have the administration of the Defence Force except with respect to -

The sub-section then gives the 2 exceptions, one being matters falling within command and the other those matters specified by the Minister. I deal with the second exception. I invite the honourable gentleman to give the Committee an indication of what matters may be specified by the Minister. I also invite the honourable gentleman to give an account of how he assesses possible difficulties of Ministers coming and goings and changing their minds so that a matter is not within the joint control of the Secretary of the Department and the Chief of Defence Force Staff. I believe that this is quite crucial if we are to have a fluctuation of ministerial edict as to what comes within the second exception, I think we will have a very curiously administered Defence Force.

But, more importantly, I turn to the first exception; that is to say, matters falling within command. I express my misgivings- again I put it no more emphatically than that- as to the efficiency of running a diarchy, and that is precisely what is involved here. The Minister attempted, during the course of his speech winding up the second reading debate, to define what is meant by ‘command ‘.He said this:

Command is to be taken as meaning the authority which a commander in the military service lawfully exercises over his subordinates by virtue of rank or appointment.

There is no difficulty in comprehending that. He went on to say:

Command includes the authority and responsibility for effectively using available resources and for planning the employment of, organising, directing, co-ordinating and controlling military forces in the accomplishment of assigned duties.

The proposition I put to my friend is this: Under that definition, which is the one he embraces, there is not one matter that could not be properly described as being administrative. So I say to the honourable gentleman: It is not as though one can, with surgical accuracy, divide matters of administration from matters of command. This is exactly the area that has given rise to widespread anxiety throughout the country.

The honourable gentleman last evening indulged himself to make, I thought, some rather ungenerous references to Dr Millar, a very distinguished Australian. He taunted my colleagues and me with the view that every sentiment uttered by us had the fountain of origin in Dr Millar’s writings. With great respect to my friend- it is my Irish mood of agreeableness that prompts me to say this to him- that is simply not true. We are quite capable of forming opinions on these matters for ourselves upon proper inquiry, upon proper reflection and upon proper discussion with people who have views in this field. The Minister has not put at rest the anxiety that exists in this field. As was so cogently pointed out last evening by my friend, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) this is the question: What are matters of administration and what matters of command? It is not enough for the Minister to read out a definition and to say: ‘Look, here it is. This should satisfy you. Go back and be rested with the assurance that I know what matters of command are’. I venture the view that considerable confusion will occur in this field. The Minister’s recitation of a definition of a command is unsatisfying and is unhelpful. But let us take the matter a little further. The Minister’s distinguished predecessor when he made his second reading speech on this Bill, said:

Ministerial directives establishing the arrangements for the inter-relation of the high level Service and civilian positions in sharing of responsibility in appropriate areas, and stating the responsiveness expected of the departmental structure to the operational priorities of the Chiefs of Staff, have already been drafted, in full consultation among the Chiefs of Staff and Secretary.

There is a teasing measure of ambiguity about that statement. I could have a full consultation with the Minister for Defence but one could not reasonably draw from that the conclusion that we were in splendid agreement about the matter.

Why have these directives not been made public? If the directives have been drawn and are in existence already, is there any reason why this Parliament should not have access to them? I invite the Minister to settle our anxiety on that point. It is to no avail the Minister taking a position of dogmatism on this point. We have our anxiety. We are not seeking to impale one side or the other. What we are asking of the honourable gentleman and of the Government is simply this: Please give us the information so that we may better form a judgment on these matters. I put what seems to me and what seems to my colleagues to be the gravamen of our charge that we do not know what are matters of administration and what are matters of command.

I sum up by referring to the honourable gentleman’s own definition. There is not one matter there which falls under a matter of command that could not, without resorting to any fertility of imagination, be put under a matter of administration. The smears which came from the Government benches last evening to the views offered by two of the greatest commanders in history, Montgomery and Wavell, do no credit to a Government which dimisses the views of men of courage and of character by saying: ‘Ha! You are going back a few years’. That may be true but they were great men and they were responsible for great feats of arms. Their reputation is not to be diminished by smears. As Marshal Wavell himself put it, he ranked administration ahead of tactics. If a man of the eminence of Field-Marshal Wavell puts administration ahead of tactics, then I think it is at least incumbent upon the Commonwealth Minister for Defence to offer an explanation to us why it is in this apparently confused area, the Government is reluctant to give information.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– Last evening, as the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) pointed out, I gave a definition of the concept of command. I think the essential feature there is the words ‘which a commander in the military service lawfully exercises over his subordinates by virtue of rank or appointment ‘. This is a difficult area as the honourable member for Moreton himself would have recognised having at one stage exercised the position of Minister for the Navy. Under the Constitution, any Minister is responsible for the administration of a Department of State. One cannot be a Minister under the Constitution unless one has a Department of State to administer. The manner in which that administration takes place comes under the various rules and regulations which have been established by precedent- the Public Service Act and so on. In this area of command and administration, the Bill provides that the Minister shall be responsible for the administration of the department and the defence forces under the Act. This provides, as any Bill provides, for the Minister to have the opportunity to decide to allocate these functions. I am sure that the learned and honourable member for Moreton will recognise the very great difficulty- I am sure that he felt this himself when he was administering a Department of State- in defining precisely concepts such as administration. What the Bill seeks to do- this was on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel who recognised the great difficulties associated with precise definitions- is to ensure that the Minister has the responsibility under the Act. Two people would assist him in that administrationone being the Chief of the Defence Force Staff and the other the Secretary of the Department. Perhaps here there is the element- I agree with the honourable member for Moreton- of the way that the defence re-organisation must be administered. I should like to draw on a comment made by His Excellency the GovernorGeneral because I believe that it is pertinent to the whole notion of making any administration work. In December last year, the GovernorGeneral said in his speeches at Duntroon and Point Cook:

It has, for as long as I can remember, been a problem to persuade military people and civilians that they must cooperate with one another if both groups are to make a significant contribution to the formulation of defence policy. It is simply the case that neither purely military officers, nor purely civilian officers, can provide the country with what it needs in the defence field. Only by co-operation can this be done.

In this field of distinguishing as between concepts of command and concepts of administration, I know that the honourable member for Moreton, having had to face up to this himself as a Minister of State, will recognise the supreme difficulty of drafting a watertight definition. What we are being guided by here is the element of co-operation, the element of commonsense, and the notions of command and of administration that have applied in the defence forces structure. I recognise the difficulty that the Parliamentary Counsel had. He, in his wisdom, decided that this was a matter for the administration. We accepted his advice in this.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-The Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) expressed the difficulty a Minister has in his position as administrator and as the person responsible for the general control of a department. He expressed the difficulty in allocation of responsibilities- I think those were his exact words. He then pointed out the problem of command flowing from the Governor-General. I suggest that in this context it is not the Minister’s responsibility but may well be that of the Executive Council or the Cabinet rather than the Minister as to who will command. I do not think the Minister meant to imply that but his words sounded very much as if he were implying that.

I raise again this matter of command and the difference between command and administration. There is constant reference throughout clause 7 to command. It provides that the Chief of Defence Force Staff shall command the defence force. It mentions ‘command by the Chief. Throughout this clause, the word ‘command’ is used. I think my friend, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) referred to the definition of command used by the Minister last night. He drew attention to the responsibility for effectively using resources and for planning the employment of, or organising, directing, coordinating and, controlling, military forces in the accomplishment of assigned duties. That also includes the responsibility for welfare, morale, discipline and personnel under his control.

Dr Millar has been mentioned a number of times in this debate. I refer to him in this instance although I have not done so previously. Dr Millar, in his article of 9 July, sets out the responsibilities as he sees them and indeed as we see them, of the civil section. They cover the whole area that the Minister defined last night. They cover things like defence manpower, pay, recruitment, conditions of service, personnel policy, and training and education policy. If they do not fit within the definition of ‘command’ as the Minister gave it last night, I do not know what does. In fact, we have further evidence which would tend to support the proposition that there is great difficulty in deciding where the distinction lies. The former Minister, when introducing the Bill- and again I refer to it- said:

The Secretary . . . will be the adviser on policy, on organisation and on financial planning and programming.

There is great conflict in the Government’s mind; I am sure of that. It would seem that if the matter is to be cleared it is not for the Minister to say to us in Opposition: ‘Why don’t you go along and talk to the Secretary of the Department or the Chief of the Defence Force Staff and find out what they have in mind?’ This is the Parliament. Here is where decisions are made. Here we have the right and the responsibility to find out the

Government’s intentions. What are the directives? Again I request the Minister. What are the directives you are going to issue for the operation of the defence forces? I think that we as a Parliament need to know and the people of Australia need to know.

One other matter is of great concern to me. It relates to the whole Bill but particularly to this clause. It is the Government’s power to cause actions on the part of its servants without any regulatory or legislative basis. We were told last night, and indeed it is in the documents, that the reorganisation of the defence forces has been going on for something like 2 years. What was the basis, what was the power that the Government had to carry out those actions? I equate it with things like the regional employment development scheme, the Australian Police and the various interim commissions which were established when the Government had no directive or power from the Parliament to carry out those actions. It is government by stealth. I feel that in defence reorganisation the Government has done the same as it has done in other areas.

We could easily refuse this Bill, I suppose. That would tend to be irresponsible. But if the Government is going to treat the Parliament and the people of the nation as it has and to opt for government by stealth I think that sort of action deserves reciprocal action. It is time that the Government went back to a democracy and allowed proper consideration of these measures. The only way under this Bill and particularly under clause 7, which we are considering, that we can understand the Government’s intention and allay the ever-present fears that are welling up within the defence forces themselves as to how much say the Public Service is going to have over their actions it is for the Minister to tell us what his directives are, how the thing is going to work. What is the translation of the Bill? What is the relationship between civil and military men? I think the Minister owes a great deal to the Parliament and the people of the nation right now during this debate to tell us his intentions.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 111- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 1 12 (Interpretation).

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I will not delay the Committee long. I again make a formal inquiry as to why this amendment is necessary. The effect of this amendment is to take from section 4 of the Courts-Martial Appeals Act the term ‘Royal Australian Air Force’. I will not repeat the argument I pressed upon the Committee last night, but I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) whether he will give an explanation. It is true that the Defence Act does not use the term ‘ Royal Australian Air Force ‘, but do not tell me that it is because of symmetry of drafting or a passionate desire to have a splendid sense of uniformity running throughout all defence legislation that the term ‘Royal Australian Air Force’ is being deleted from the CourtsMartial Appeals Act.

I shall not, and my colleagues shall not, seek to delay the passage of the Bill through this chamber. We rest with the assurance that another place in all probability will examine the Bill at a public hearing, because that is what it needs. I am sorry that we were not able to convince the Minister as to the merit of that argument last evening although, if I may say in summary, I thought he came perilously close to accepting our argument. He listened to the speeches- I repeat, the very cogent speeches- of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I thought: ‘Well, there it is, Killen. You have failed to convince him, but those 2 stirring speeches and the speech of my honourable and robust friend from Kennedy have convinced him’. One could almost see the look of apostasy on his face as though he were about to go over to the other side.

Probably when the Bill gets to another place we will find out a little more about it than the Minister has been pleased to assure us. I ask him again on the basis of simple candour and friendship and I trust in terms of courtesy whether he will please give us an explanation as to why the term ‘Royal Australian Air Force’ is being dropped from the Courts-Martial Appeals Act. .

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– In the spirit of courtesy that prevaileth today- there was not quite so much last night- may I make the observation that the Air Force Act until 1964 contained the following words in section 3(1):

There shall be an Air Force, to be called the Royal Australian Air Force, which may be raised, maintained and organised by the Governor-General for the defence and protection of the Commonwealth and shall be part of the Defence Force constituted under the Defence Act.

Section 3 was repealed in 1964, not by a Labor government but by a Liberal government, by Act No. 94 of 1964. A new section 4a was inserted and it read:

The Air Force of the Commonwealth consists of three parts, namely, the Permanent Air Force, the Air Force Emergency Force and the Citizen Air Force.

There is no reference at all in that Act to the Royal Australian Air Force. The drafting change we have introduced here is to call it the Australian Air Force, but I want to assure the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), I want to assure the Australian public at large, and particularly do I want to assure the members of the Royal Australian Air Force that the nomenclature ‘Royal Australian Air Force’ will be maintained.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 113 to 187- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 407

DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Mr Barnard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-I suppose I should apologise to the House for inflicting myself once again upon it, but I will not delay the House very long. The Opposition supports the Defence Force Ombudsman Bill. Its purpose is to establish an ombudsman to examine complaints in the area of defence administration. I suppose one would be at liberty to foresee some difficulty, should the matter of administration come up, if a person in the defence area says: ‘No, this is not a matter of administration; it is a matter of command ‘. So no doubt the Ombudsman ‘s ingenuity will be put to the test in that area. The purpose of the Bill was summed up by the previous Minister for Defence quite succinctly in his second reading speech. At the risk of wearying the House may I recapitulate what that honourable gentleman said. He said:

The function of the Defence Force Ombudsman will be to investigate complaints made by members of the defence force, former members of the defence force or their dependants with regard to any action in relation to a matter of administration which arises from the fact that a person is serving or has served in the defence force.

I suppose it is a matter of notoriety that all Government departments have as one of their constant companions inertia, and frequently this affects serving personnel and their families in a most grievous way, and to that extent the creation of the office of Ombudsman is welcomed. It will enable those who feel that they have been treated in a dilatory fashion, treated unfairly or treated with scant regard for thenproblems to have some redress. I am bound to say that the Bill is a splendid illustration of what I have described as inertia on the part of the Government itself because there has been in existence the office of Ombudsman in a de facto way since November 1973, with a very distinguished Australian, Mr David Hay, filling that position. I suppose the mills of God may grind slowly as long as they grind with exactness. In this case it has taken from November 1973 until August 1975 for the Bill to be produced. May I offer just one bland criticism of the Bill: The Bill having been presented on 15 May 1975, we are now greeted with some 17 amendments to it. I would have thought with all my simplicity of mind that it would have been possible for this Bill to be settled in the first place and that it would not have been found necessary for all these amendments to be introduced.

May I make clear for my part and for the Opposition’s part that the Bill does not give to the Defence Force Ombudsman the power to interfere in respect of matters which are disciplinary in nature. If I may put it in a homely way, if a seaman should tell the chief petty officer to go to Bourke, and tender further advice to him, the chief petty officer is not left in some powerless, hapless state of mind unable to rectify the blemish of conduct. One of the proposed amendments to the Bill excites my curiosity. It is amendment (7) which deals with clause 5 relating to the jurisdiction of the Defence Force Ombudsman. Subclause (3) of clause 5 reads:

  1. The Defence Force Ombudsman is not authorised by this Act to investigate-

    1. a) action taken by a Minister;
    2. action taken by a Justice or Judge of a court established by a law of Australia;
    3. action taken by a magistrate or coroner of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or
    4. action taken by way of, or in connexion with, proceedings against a member of the Defence Force in respect of a naval, military or air force offence.

Proposed amendment (7) seeks to omit subclause (4) of clause 5. As I say, this proposal excites my curiosity. Sub-clause (4) reads:

  1. Where, at any time during an investigation into action taken by the Defence Force or a public authority, the Defence Force Ombudsman becomes of the opinion that the action was taken in the course of giving effect to a decision of the Cabinet, of a Committee of the Cabinet or of a Minister and that the Defence Force or the public authority, as the case may be, did not act improperly in the course of giving effect to that decision, the Defence Force Ombudsman shall not investigate the action further.

I am interested to know why that sub-clause is being expunged from the Bill. As the Bill now stands the Ombudsman must become seized of an opinion that the action was taken pursuant to, say, a Cabinet decision, and he says- this is the next consideration- it was not taken in properly, and that being the case he should not further investigate the action. Under the proposed amendment that provision will be deleted from the Bill. Is the position then to be that the Ombudsman can investigate a decision taken by the Cabinet? I draw the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) to what would seem to me to be, with great respect, some mild conflict in the Bill, that is that if the Ombudsman cannot investigate an action taken by a Minister it would seem to me, a fortiori, that he could not investigate an action taken by a collection or a grouping of Ministers. If that is the basis upon which the provision in sub-clause (4) becomes unnecessary then it would seem to me to be a rational explanation, but if on the other hand it is to be taken out of the Bill in the expectation that the Ombudsman can investigate action or a decision taken by Cabinet or a sub-committee of the Cabinet it would seem to me to be a rather curious form of trenching into the whole system of responsible government. I invite the Minister when winding up the debate, if he would be good enough, to give an explanation as to why this amendment is proposed.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-My comments will be quite brief. As the Opposition shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), has pointed out, we do not oppose this Bill at all. In fact we will be delighted to see it at least pass through this House because in effect the concept of a defence force Ombudsman was accepted quite some time ago. I share the pleasure of the honourable member for Moreton, that the appointment of the Defence Force Ombudsman will in no way affect the discipline that is an integral and critical part of the forces. Discipline these days is not based on the martinet attitude of a regimental sergeant-major but on understanding and mutual respect between officers and non-commissioned officers and those serving under them. It is because of this respect and understanding which inevitably grows between a good NCO and a good officer and their men that I am pleased to see that there is special mention in clause 7 of the Bill in relation to a provision that a serving member of the defence force can have a complaint dealt with by the Service authorities before submitting the matter to the Defence Force Ombudsman. The relationship which exists between an NCO and the men serving under him is of a very special nature. I would think that the average serviceman would much rather approach the Service authorities than rush off to someone who is virtually a stranger to him. So I join the honourable member for Moreton in endorsing and supporting this Bill. May it have the speediest possible passage.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-My comments also will be brief. I think that this right of investigation allowed to servicemen is a step forward. I think the name ‘ombudsman’ is a misnomer. I do not consider that an ombudsman is responsible to anybody other than the Parliament, and in that respect I think in it is the wrong term to use in view of the role to be played by the Defence Force Ombudsman. However, I think that the activities of the Ombudsman will be beneficial to many people within the Services. I have one small reservation in relation to clause 5( 1 ) which mentions investigating the matter of administration. Here again we come to the problem of command and administration. Until we have some clearing up of these definitions we are going to be in trouble. If in this case ‘administration’ is to apply to troops or men in the field and is to refer to matters of discipline or morale I find it most concerning. I trust that this will not be the case, but I sincerely press the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) to give us the reassurance we need in regard to that clause. I commend the legislation in concept although I disagree with the term used.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– in reply- In response to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) let me say that the reason that there are so many amendments- I apologise for it- is that, as he will be aware, on 6 March my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) introduced the Ombudsman Bill, which I suppose is the civilian equivalent of this Bill, to establish the office of the Australian Ombudsman. A number of amendments were made to that Bill, and because the Defence Force Ombudsman Bill follows very closely the Ombudsman Bill we felt it necessary to make the same amendments to the Defence Force Ombudsman Bill as were made to the Ombudsman Bill. That is the explanation for the amendments. The honourable member for Moreton also raised a question relating to the amendment to clause 5(4). That sub-clause has been the subject of public criticism on 2 grounds. The first is that there is no similar limit on the powers of State ombudsmen. The second criticism is that, if the intention is merely to exclude cases where no independent discretion at all is exercised in giving effect to a Cabinet or ministerial decision, it is too wide and is unnecessary having regard to paragraph (a) of clause 5(3) of the Bill which excludes actions taken by a Minister from investigation by the Defence Force Ombudsman. In addition, the clause is inconsistent with sub-clause 1 7( 1 ) of the Bill which contemplates that the Defence Force Ombudsman can investigate actions taken in accordance with an ordinance or regulation, in which case he can call into question the reasonableness of a decision of the Executive Council. So on these grounds and in responding to what we thought were very justifiable criticisms of the original clause we now propose in the amendment to omit the clause.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 3.

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears”authorized person” means-

    1. a person appointed by the Defence Force Ombudsman to be an authorized person for the purposes of this Act; or
    2. a person included in a class of persons appointed by the Defence Force Ombudsman to be authorized persons for the purposes of this Act;

Department’ means a Department of the Australian Public Service other than the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department; dependant of a member of the Defence Force’ means-

  1. in relation to action taken under an enactment- a person who is, or is claiming to be, a dependant of a member of the Defence Force for the purposes of that enactment; or
  2. in any other case- a person who is wholly or partly dependent on a member of the Defence Force; enactment’ means-
  3. an Act;
  4. an Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory or of the Northern Territory; or
  5. an instrument (including rules, regulations or bylaws) made under an Act or under such an Ordinance; officer of a public authority’ means-
  6. in the case of a Department-
  7. a person (including the principal officer of a Department) employed, whether in a permanent or temporary capacity, in the Department; or

    1. any other person (not being a Minister) authorized to exercise powers or perform functions of the Department on behalf of the Department; and
  8. in the case of any other public authority-

    1. the person who constitutes, or is acting as the person who constitutes, the authority;
    2. a person who is, or is acting as, a member of the authority or is a deputy of such a member;
    3. a person who is employed in the service, or is a member of the staff, of the authority, whether or not he is employed by the authority; or
    4. a person authorized by the authority to exercise any powers or perform any functions of the authority;

Ordinance’, in relation to the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory, includes a law of a State that applies, or the provisions of a law of a State that apply, in the Territory by virtue of an enactment; principal officer’ means-

  1. in relation to the Defence Force- the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee;
  2. in relation to a Department- the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Permanent Head of the Department; or
  3. in relation to a public authority other than a Department- the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office declared by the regulations to be the principal office in respect of the authority; public authority’ means-
  4. a Department; or
  5. an authority or body (not being a court) established for a public purpose by a law of Australia, by a law of the Australian Capital Territory or by a law of the Northern Territory other than-

    1. an authority or body that is declared by the regulations to be an authority or body to which this Act does not apply; or
    2. an authority or body that is constituted by, or includes among its members, a Justice or Judge of a court established by a law of Australia or a person who has, by virtue of an Act, the same status as a Justice or Judge of such a court; responsible Minister’ means-
  6. in relation to action taken by the Defence Forcethe Minister for Defence;
  7. in relation to action taken in relation to a matter for which a Department is responsible- the Minister administering that Depanment; or
  8. in relation to action taken in relation to a matter for which a public authority other than a department is responsible- the Minister administering the enactment by which the authority is established, or another Minister acting for and on behalf of that Minister.

    1. For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by a member of the Defence Force shall be deemed to be taken by the Defence Force if the member takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his being a member of the Defence Force, whether or not-
  9. the action is taken in connexion with, in the course of or as incidental to his service as a member of the Defence Force; or
  10. b) the taking of the action is within his duties as a member of the Defence Force.

    1. Subject to sub-section (4), for the purposes of this Act, action taken by the Governor-General to appoint a person to be an officer of the Naval Forces, the Military Forces or the Air Force, to promote such an officer, to terminate the appointment, or cancel the commission, of such an officer, to accept or refuse to accept the resignation of such an officer, to transfer such an officer from one branch or part of the Defence Force to another branch or part of that Force or to place such an officer upon an unattached list, a reserve of officers list or a retired list shall be deemed to be taken by the Defence Force but any other action taken by the GovernorGeneral in relation to the Defence Force shall be deemed not to be action taken by the Defence Force.
    2. Action taken by any person or persons by way of, or in connexion with, the appointment of a person to be the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chief of Naval Staff, the Chief of the General Staff or the Chief of the Air Staff is not action taken by the Defence Force or the Department of Defence for the purposes of this Act.
    3. For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an officer of a Department shall be deemed to be taken by the Department-
  11. if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his being an officer of the Department, whether or not-

    1. the action is taken for orin connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the Depanment; or
    2. the taking of the action is within the duties of the officer; or
  12. if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions conferred on him by an enactment.

    1. For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an officer of a public authority other than a Department shall be deemed to be taken by the authority-
  13. if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his being an officer of the authority, whether or not-

    1. i) the action is taken for or in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the authority; or
    2. the taking of the action is within the duties of the officer; or
  14. if the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise of powers or the performance of functions conferred on him by an enactment.

    1. In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to the taking of action includes a reference to-
  15. the making of a decision or recommendation; and
  16. the failure or refusal to take any action or to make a decision or recommendation.

    1. A reference in this Act to the international relations of Australia is a reference to the relations of Australia with the Government of another country or with an international organization.
    2. In this Act (other than in sub-section (2)), unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a member of the Defence Force or of a part of that Force includes a reference to a person who has been a member of the Defence Force or of that part of that Force.
    3. 10) For the purpose of this Act, a report shall be taken to have been made or furnished to the Defence Force if it is made or furnished to the principal officer of the Defence Force.

Clause 5.

  1. Where, at any time during an investigation into action taken by the Defence Force or a public authority, the Defence Force Ombudsman becomes of the opinion that the action was taken in the course of giving effect to a decision of the Cabinet, of a Committee of the Cabinet or of a Minister and that the Defence Force or the public authority, as the case may be, did not act improperly in the course of giving effect to that decision, the Defence Force Ombudsman shall not investigate the action further.

Clause 9.

A complaint shall be made to the Defence Force Ombudsman in writing.

Clause 1 1.

  1. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a person is not excused from furnishing information, producing a document or other record or answering a question when required to do so under this Act on the ground that the furnishing of the information, the production of the document or record or the answer to the question would contravene the provisions of any other Act, would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty, but his answer to any such question is not admissible in evidence against him in proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against section 35.
  2. Subject to this Act, a person attending before the Defence Force Ombudsman has the same protection, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this Act, subject to the same liabilities, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court.

Clause 16.

  1. An authorised person is not entitled, by virtue of this section, to inspect documents on premises occupied by the Defence Force or a public authority except by arrangement with the principal officer of the Defence Force or authority.
  2. A reference in this section to an authorised person includes a reference to the Defence Force Ombudsman.

Clause 20.

  1. The first report under this section shall be submitted as soon as practicable after 30 June 1 975, and shall relate to the operations of the Defence Force Ombudsman during the period that commenced at the commencement of this Act and ended on that date.
  2. Where the Defence Force Ombudsman refers in a report prepared by him in pursuance of sub-section ( 1 ) to an investigation made by him under this Act, the Defence Force Ombudsman shall not, in referring to the investigation, set out opinions that are, either expressly or impliedly, critical of the Defence Force, a public authority or a person unless the Defence Force Ombudsman had complied with sub-section 10 (5) in relation to the investigation.

Clause 33.

  1. The Defence Force Ombudsman may, by instrument in writing, delegate to a member of the staff referred to in sub-section 30(1), or, with the consent of the Minister, to any other person, any of his powers under this Act, except this power of delegation or the power to report under section 17,18, 19 or 20.

Clause 34.

  1. In this section, ‘officer’, means-

    1. the Defence Force Ombudsman;
    2. a person who is a member of the staff referred to in sub-section 30 ( 1 ); or
    3. another person, not being a person referred to in paragraph (b), to whom the Defence Force Ombudsman has delegated any of his powers under section 33.
  2. Subject to this section, an officer shall not, either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of his duty as an officer, and either while he is, or after he ceases to be, an officer, make a record of or divulge or communicate to any person, any information acquired by him by reason of his being an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of this Act.

Penalty: $500.

Clause 35 (Offences).

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– I ask for leave to have the amendments that have been circulated in my name taken together and voted on in globo.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-As there is no objection to that course it will be followed.

Mr MORRISON:

-I move:

In Clause 3 in the definition ‘principal officer’ omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraph:-

in relation to a public authority other than a Department

i) if the regulations declare an office to be the principal office in respect of the authority- the person holding, or performing the duties of, that office; or

in any other case- the person who constitutes, or is acting as the person who constitutes, that authority or, if the authority is constituted by 2 or more persons, the person who is entitled to preside at any meeting of the authority at which he is present;’.

In Clause 3, omit the definition of ‘public authority’, substitute the following definition:- “public authority” means-

a Department;

a body corporate, or an unincorporated body, established for a public purpose by, or in accordance with the provisions of, an enactment, other than-

an incorporated company or association;

a body that has the power to take evidence on oath or affirmation and is constituted by or includes among its members, a person who is a Justice or Judge of a court established by a law of Australia or a person who has, by virtue of an Act, the same status as a Justice or Judge of such a court; and

a body that under sub-section ( 1a) or the regulations is not to be taken to be a public authority for the purposes of this Act;

any other body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, declared by the regulations to be a public authority for the purposes of this Act, being-

a body established by the GovernorGeneral or by a Minister, or

an incorporated company in which Australia has a controlling interest;

the person holding, or performing the duties of, an office established by an enactment, other than such a person who under sub-section (1b) or the regulations is not to be taken to be a public authority for the purposes of this Act; or

the person performing the duties of an appointment declared by the regulations to be an appointment the holder of which is a public authority for the purposes of this Act, being an appointment made by the Governor-General, or by a Minister, otherwise than under an enactment; ‘.

In Clause 3, in the definition ‘responsible Minister’, omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraph: -

in relation to action taken in relation to a matter for which a public authority other than a Department is responsible-

if a public authority referred to in paragraph ( b ) of the definition of ‘public authority’ is responsible for dealing with the matter- the Minister administering the enactment by which, or in accordance with the provisions of which, the public authority is established;

if a public authority referred to in paragraph (d ) of that definition is responsible for dealing with the matter- the Minister administering the enactment by which the office is established; or

if a public authority referred to in paragraph (c) or (e) of that definition is responsible for dealing with the matter- the Minister declared by the regulations to be the responsible Minister in respect of that authority, ‘.

In Clause 3, after sub-clause ( 1 ), insert the following subclauses: (1a) An unincorporated body, being a board, council, committee, sub-committee or other body established by, or in accordance with the provisions of, an enactment for the purpose of assisting, or performing functions connected with, the Defence Force or a public authority shall not be taken to be a public authority for the purpose of this Act, but action taken by the body, or by a person on its behalf, shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to have been taken by the Defence Force or that public authority, as the case may be. ( 1b) A person shall not be taken to be a public authority by virtue of his holding, or performing the duties of-

an office the duties of which he performs as duties of his employment as an officer or employee of a Department or as a member of the staff of another public authority;

an office of member of a body; or

an office established by an enactment for the purposes of a public authority, but any action taken by or on behalf of such a person in his capacity as the person holding or performing the duties of the office concerned shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been taken by the Department, body or other public authority, as the case may be.’.

In clause 3, after sub-clause (5), insert the following subclause: (5a) Where-

action is taken by a person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a function conferred by or under an enactment;

the person does not exercise the power or perform the functionbyvirtueofholding,orperformingthe duties of, an office established by, or in accordance with the provisions of, an enactment;

the person is not an officer of a public authority for the purposes of this Act; and

the person is not authorized to exercise the power or perform the function by reason of his being a Judge of a court of, or a magistrate of, a State or Territory, the action shall be deemed to have been taken, for the purposes of this Act, by the Department responsible for dealing with the matter in connexion with which the action is taken. ‘.

In clause 3, after sub-clause ( 10) add the following subclause:

On and after the date fixed by proclamation under section 2 of the Defence Force Re-organization Act 1975 as the date of commencement of section 7 of that Act, a reference in this Act to the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, shall be read as a reference to the Chief of Defence Force Staff.’.

In clause 5, page 6, omit sub-clause (4).

In clause 9, add at the end of the clause the following subclauses:

A person who is detained in custody is entitled, upon making a request to the person in whose custody he is detained or to another person performing duties in connexion with his detention-

to be provided with facilities for preparing a complaint under this Act and for enclosing the complaint in a sealed envelope; and

to have forwarded to the Defence Force Ombudsman, without undue delay, a sealed envelope delivered by him to the person and addressed to the Defence Force Ombudsman.

Where a sealed envelope is delivered to a person under sub-section (2) for forwarding to the Defence Force Ombudsman, neither the person in whose custody he is detained nor any other person performing duties in connexion with his detention is entitled to open the envelope or inspect any document enclosed in the envelope. ‘.

In Clause 1 1, leave out sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clause:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment, a person is not excused from furnishing any information, producing a document or other record or answering a question when required to do so under this Act on the ground that the furnishing of the information, the production of the document or record or the answer to the question-

would contravene the provisions of any other Act, would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty; or

would disclose legal advice furnished to a Minister, the Defence Force or a public authority, but his answer to any such question is not admissible in evidence against him in proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against section 35. ‘.

In Clause 1 1, leave out sub-clause (6).

In Clause 16, leave out sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clauses:

For the purposes of an investigation under this Act, an authorized person is entitled to inspect any documents relevant to the investigation kept at premises entered by him under this section, other than documents in respect of which a Minister has furnished a certificate under sub-section 1 1 (3), at a reasonable time of the day arranged with the principal officer of the Defence Force or public authority concerned. (4a) Sub-section (4) shall not be taken to restrict the operation of section 11.’.

In Clause 20, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘ 1975’, substitute 1976’.

After clause 20, insert the following clause in Part II: 20a. ( 1 ) The Defence Force Ombudsman may, from time to time, submit to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report of the operations of the Defence Force Ombudsman during a part of a year or a report concerning a particular investigation or particular investigationscarried out under this Act.

The ombudsman shall not, in a report submitted to the Minister under sub-section (1), refer to an investigation in relation to which he has made a report in accordance with sub-section 17 (2) unless he is of the opinion that action that is adequate and appropriate in the circumstances has been taken with respect to the matters and recommendations included in that report.

The Minister shall cause a report submitted to him under sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister.

Where the Defence Force Ombudsman refers in a report submitted under sub-section (1) to an investigation made by him under this Act, the Defence Force Ombudsman shall not, in referring to the investigation, set out opinions that are, either expressly or impliedly, critical of the Defence Force, a public authority or a person unless the Defence Force Ombudsman has complied with sub-section 10 (5) in relation to the investigation. ‘.

In Clause 33, sub-clause ( 1 ) leave out ‘ 19 or 20 ‘, substitute 19, 20 or 20a’.

In Clause 34, sub-clause (1) add at the end of paragraph (c) ‘or who is an authorised person’.

In Clause 34, sub-clause (2) leave out ‘except in the performance of his duty as an officer, ‘.

In Clause 34, after sub-clause (2), insert the following subclause: (2a) Sub-section (2) does not prevent an officer-

from making a record of, or divulging or communicating to any person, information acquired by him in the performance of his duties as an officer and for purposes connected with the performance of the functions of the Defence Force Ombudsman under this Act; or

from divulging or communicating information to a person-

if the information was furnished by a member of the Defence Force or an officer of a public authority in the performance of his duties as such member or officer- with the consent of the principal officer of the Defence Force or authority or of the responsible Minister; or

if the information was furnished by a person otherwise than as set out in sub-paragraph (i)- with the consent of the person who furnished the information. ‘.

After clause 35, insert the following clause: - 35a. Civil proceedings do not lie against a person in respect of loss, damage or injury of any kind suffered by another person by reason of-

the making of a complaint to the Defence Force Ombudsman under this Act; or

the making of a statement to, or the furnishing of a document or information to, a person, being an officer within the meaning of section 34, for the purposes of this Act.’.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Morrison)- by leaveread a third time. (Quorum formed.)

page 413

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Motion ( by Mr Daly)- by leave- agreed to:

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives earlier this day amending the House’s resolution of 1 August 1974 relating to the participation of the Australian Parliament in the Constitutional Convention.

page 413

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL BILL 1975

Message ‘received from the Senate intimating that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House consequent upon Senate amendments Nos 14 and 16 and has agreed to the amendments made by the House to Senate Amendments Nos 20 to 23, 25 to 28 and 32.

page 413

CRIMES BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-This Bill, which seeks to amend the Crimes Act, makes it an offence under that Act for somebody who is an officer, member or employee of an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to steal, fraudulently misappropriate or fraudulently convert to his own use any money or property belonging to the organisation. Under the legislation a person found guilty of such an offence is liable to a penalty of imprisonment for 7 years. The Opposition agrees that there is a need for this Bill. It is extraordinary that, where organisations’ funds are misappropriated, under existing Federal legislation all that we in the Federal jurisdiction can say is that the person responsible must stop doing it. We cannot do anything further than that. The organisations have to rely on State action if proceedings are to be instituted against the person who is guilty of that offence under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Clearly, in respect of organisations which are registered under a Federal Act, such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Federal Government should be able to initiate action in these circumstances. This Bill will enable it to do that. The Government is right in establishing machinery to deal with this despicable form of crime in which a person who is put in a position of trust by his fellow workers violates that trust and steals from his mates.

Unfortunately, there have been blatant examples of this abuse of trust in recent times. There have been cases involving the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, No. 2 Branch, in Victoria. There have been cases involving several members of the Builders Labourers Federation. These are some of the more well known cases which come to mind. This Bill will ensure that action can be taken under Federal jurisdiction to bring to justice people who engage in criminal practices of this nature. Clause 3 (2) of the Bill recognises the fact that such crimes are often difficult to prove if proof requires the identification of specific sums of money or items of property. Under the Bill it will be sufficient to prove a general deficiency in the books of account. Upon such proof the penalty is, as described in the Bill, imprisonment for 7 years. The Opposition agrees that the Bill makes adequate provision for dealing with the situation for which it is designed. However, it is worth mentioning that the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act dealing with annual reports and financial statements of organisations probably need tightening to ensure that rank and file members of organisations are kept fully informed of where and how their membership dues are being used and of the general financial position of the organisation to which they belong.

I said a moment ago that the Bill is adequate to deal with the specific problem of the stealing of the funds of an organisation. But since the introduction of this Bill we have received an interim report from the Royal Commission Into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions conducted by Mr Justice Sweeney. His interim report was tabled in this House this week. I find it difficult to choose language to describe adequately the situation which is revealed by this interim report. Contained in its pages are cases not only of theft of union funds but also of blackmail and extortion accompanied by menaces, threats and intimidation. It sounds and reads like a story about the Mafia, but the tragedy is that it is not. It is about a small group of ruthless and dishonest people in the Australian union movement thieving from their workmates and extorting money under threats. Such actions are clearly of a similar kind to those covered by this Bill.

As the Bill is presently drafted, some of those actions would not come within its provisions. In due course my colleague the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who represents in this House the shadow Attorney-General, will be moving an amendment to correct this deficiency. The amendment is entirely consistent with the objective of the Government’s legislation and therefore it should be acceptable to the Government. I do not blame the Government for not covering the appalling situation disclosed by the interim report of Mr Justice Sweeney because the report was not available when the legislation was brought down. But if the Government does not take the opportunity provided by this Opposition amendment to correct what is now seen to be a deficiency in the legislation it will be very clearly to blame. It would be intolerable if the practices described by Mr Justice Sweeney were allowed to continue. The Government must act now to put a stop to this longstanding campaign of blackmail and extortion.

So that the House will be aware of the full implications of what has been going on, I shall refer to certain specific cases mentioned in the Sweeney interim report. Before doing so, it may be appropriate to remind the House that section 288 of the Navigation Act provides that no ship shall engage in the coasting trade unless it is licensed to do so by a single voyage permit which is commonly known as an SVP. Section 289 of the same Act provides that seamen employed on vessels engaged in the coasting trade shall be paid at the current ruling rates for seamen in Australia. The first case mentioned by Mr Justice Sweeney in his interim report is that of the Wakasa Maru. That was the first occasion on which demands were made in relation to the coastal trade. Those demands were made some 4 years ago. In fact, the issue related to intrastate trade. The Wakasa Maru was to transport machinery to the Ord River scheme in north Western Australia. Mr Rawlings claimed that the Australian vessel Wollongong should be used. It is interesting to note that Mr Justice Sweeney rejects this claim, as the Wollongong did not have the capacity. Then Mr Rawlings imposed a ban on the ship. He fixed the sum of $2,500 for the ban on the vessel to be lifted. This was paid. Mr Justice Sweeney comments in his report:

I am satisfied that the demands made had no relation to any union policy concerning foreign vessels on the Australian coast.

Mr Justice Sweeney also makes reference to what is known as the Marine Industry Group. This is a group of unions concerned with maritime matters and affiliated with the Western Australia

Trades and Labour Council. Mr Justice Sweeney comments:

It had no books, no clear constitution and there seems to be considerable doubt whether it had properly elected officers, or whether it really had meetings.

No cashbook, journal or ledger of any nature was kept. The only books available were sets of cheque butts, bank statements and incomplete sets of receipt books and bank deposit slips.

Listed in the documents referred to above was a note which stated: ‘Loan to member- $250’. Tracing the cheque butts revealed that the member concerned was Mr Rawlings, who then claimed that he had used this money for a union trip. The cheque was then traced through the bank to York Motors Pty Ltd. It formed part of the transaction in Mr Rawlings’ purchase of a motor car. The loan was not approved by the union or by the Marine Industry Group. Mr Justice Sweeney comments:

I am satisfied that there was an attempt to conceal the payment to Rawlings and a further attempt when the payment to Rawlings became known to conceal the purpose. I am satisfied that the reason this payment was demanded and received was to place money at the disposal of Wells and Rawlings, which could be used for their own purposes, and in Rawlings’ case- his own personal benefit. The payment was not related to any union campaign at all.

We now come to the case of the Bay boats. The Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd wanted to ship 400 vehicles to Western Australia. No other means was available to get them there; accordingly, arrangements were made to take the cars by the Moreton Bay and Botany Bay. I point out that neither of those vessels is in any sense a flag of convenience vessel. The cars were shipped to Western Australia and they were then unloaded. Mr Rawlings’ name crops up again. He demanded $288 for every day involved in the shipment, a total of $2,500. Mr Justice Sweeney comments:

Quite clearly the payment was made under duress . . . I am of the opinion that the purpose of the demand was to replenish the funds of the maritime industry group and not to further any union policy at all . . . In my opinion the demand was made in respect of these two boats primarily for the purpose of allowing Rawlings to obtain $250.

The next case is that of the Manchester Vigour. It involves joint action by Mr Rawlings and Mr Elliott of the Seamen’s Union of Australia. This ship was diverted to collect containers from Fremantle and to carry them to Melbourne. Mr Rawlings demanded the difference between the Australian and British rates and placed bans on the ship. When he was advised that the voyage, under section 7 of the Navigation Act, did not form part of the coastal trade, Mr Rawlings replied that he did not care what the Act provided and his demand still stood. The payment was refused by the British crew who were already on a bonus system considerably more beneficial to them than the differential payment which had been demanded by Mr Rawlings.

Mr Enderby:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise with some reluctance to take a point of order in relation to the remarks of my good friend the honourable member for Corangamite. The Bill is simply to insert a single clause into the Crimes Act. Although my friend’s speech is interesting I suggest that it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter that is before the House at the second reading stage. It may be that the remarks would be relevant to what I understand one of the honourable member’s colleagues will move at the Committee stage. If they are I suggest, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that will be the occasion for a speech of this kind, not at the second reading stage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Yes. I uphold the point of order.

Mr STREET:

-Speaking to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the title of the Bill which states that the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Crimes Act for the purposes of the protection of the property of certain organisations. ‘Certain organisations ‘include the maritime industry group of unions and the Seamen’s Union of Australia. The comments that I have been making have shown what was said by Mr Justice Sweeney. He said that he was satisfied the demands made had no relation to any union policy concerning foreign vessels on the Australian coast, and similar comments. This money was obtained allegedly for an organisation and was not properly used for that purpose. My remarks are consistent with the title of the Bill. This is what we are talking about. It is misappropriation of funds which allegedly were for the organisation concerned and which were put in individuals ‘ pockets.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I appreciate the honourable member’s point. However, I ask him to be careful to keep within the actual confines of the Bill.

Mr STREET:

– I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I come again to this case of the Manchester Vigour on which bans were imposed pending payment of certain funds. Speaking about that, Mr Justice Sweeney said:

It is my view that the initiative for the action came from Rawlings and was an arrogant misuse of power … It was acting in open defiance of the provisions of the Navigation Act.

Mr James:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I repeat the point of order taken by the Attorney-General. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are permitting the honourable member for Corangamite to introduce these shortcomings as pointed out by Mr Justice Sweeney and related to the maritime unions I should think it would be appropriate for me to rise in this debate and to speak about Alexander Barton and some of the arch friends of the Liberal Party who misappropriated the funds of their shareholders to the extent of $22m.

Mr STREET:

-That is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with the question.

Mr Enderby:

– Speaking briefly to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope we can keep the exchange more or less civilised. My friend from Corangamite is making points that perhaps are quite relevant to a question of menaces, threat or intimidation. But they are the subject of the amendment that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), I understand, will move at the Committee stage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the Attorney-General is right. The comments would be more appropriately made in relation to the proposed amendment at the Committee stage.

Mr STREET:

– I defer to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in due course at the Committee stage I shall refer in detail to further cases referred to in Mr Justice Sweeney’s interim report. I am sure the Bill aims to correct some of the abuses such as are outlined in the interim report, but in its present form the Bill is not fully capable of doing so. But I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall refer to this in detail later when we get to the Committee stage of the Bill.

I impress on the House that conduct of the nature I have just described has been held by the royal commissioner to be ‘entirely improper and contrary to trade union standards and ethics’. Because of that and because of the fact that the Bill as drafted is not capable of coping with all the irregularities which were brought to attention by Mr Justice Sweeney, the Opposition will be moving to widen the terms of the Bill to provide against further abuses such as those outlined in the interim report which we will be discussing at the Committee stage.

I trust that the Government, in the spirit in which the legislation was introduced in the first place- to stop flagrant misuse of organisational funds- will see fit to support the amendment which is designed to protect the property of certain organisations in conformity with the title of the Bill, when individuals misappropriate funds which have been paid to them and do not transfer them to their proper destination. Leaving aside for a moment whether the persons concerned were paid the money legally in the first place, it is a matter of great concern, it is a new intrusion, and a most unwelcome one in the industrial relations affairs of Australia. I think it is wise of the Government to move in at this stage to try to prevent the extension of such abuses. We will co-operate with the Government in widening the terms of this legislation to ensure that the abuses do not occur in other areas as well.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I have only a few remarks to make at this second reading stage. They relate mainly to the reasons which prompted the Government to introduce this measure, or rather the lack of explanation of the reasons why this measure was introduced. The second reading speech of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) was conspicuous for the omission of any explanation as to precisely why this measure should be introduced. The Opposition is ready to accept that if there are reasons for measures of this nature the Bill certainly should be introduced. The Opposition has absolutely no intention of hindering the passage of the Bill in that context, nor indeed does it in any way oppose the Government’s remedying what it apparently regards as an unsatisfactory situation. I hope that during the course of his remarks on this debate the Attorney-General will explain the reasons why the Bill was brought forward.

I understand that Senator Greenwood, the Opposition’s spokesman on matters relating to the Attorney-General’s responsibilities, has written to the Attorney-General on a number of occasions endeavouring to obtain some information as to the reasons for the introduction of this measure. Senator Greenwood requested that information of the Attorney-General to enable the Opposition to make a responsible and considered assessment of the Bill so that it could make up its mind as to what attitude it would take. So far, the Attorney-General’s response has been courteous but unhelpful. I hope that during the course of this debate we may be able to find out precisely why the Government has brought in this measure.

I would like to . commend to the House the remarks of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) regarding matters disclosed in the interim report tabled recently by Mr Justice Sweeney. Matters involved in the Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions that Mr Justice Sweeney is presently conducting have prompted the Opposition to move an amendment during the Committee stage of the debate. The amendment has been circulated in my name. I again ask that the AttorneyGeneral explain to the House the reasons behind this legislation and, in particular, why in an area which is normally covered by the crimes Acts of the various States he has seen fit to introduce measures which are essentially amendments to the ordinary criminal law.

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

-This Bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1914-1973 for the purposes of the protection of the property of certain organisations. I could not think of anything that would be more important than the protection of the property of people or organisations. The Act, of course, is cited as the Crimes Act 1914-1973. If it is amended by this Bill it may then be cited as the Crimes Act 1914-1975. It shall come into operation on the day that it receives royal assent.

I commend the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) for disclosing some aspects of the Sweeney report. I think that while it may have been ruled that that report is perhaps irrelevant to this particular part of the debate, it has certainly disclosed the necessity for the implementation of such legislation. This Bill will make it possible to bring to justice people who commit crimes against their own unions or organisations but who, at the moment, are outside the authority of State jurisdiction. The Bill, I believe, is adequate for dealing with persons who have misappropriated union funds, particularly those in authority as officers or members of an organisation upon trust. I refer to the unions which are registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is; therefore, appropriate that provision be made by this Parliament for such offences, which I believe are associated only with the lowest form of human beings, to be dealt with.

Section 71 of the Crimes Act 1914-1973 is the pattern used for the drafting of this legislation and should be adequate in bringing to justice all persons who commit such offences. The Government is endeavouring, I believe, to remedy a situation which has caused concern for some time for so many unions and so many organisations which have been the victims of stealth and misappropriation over the years. The amendment which will be moved by the Opposition will help to rectify and will help to fill in the gaps which we believe still exist in this legislation. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-“ General · Canberra · ALP

– in reply- I should like briefly to reply to the remarks that have been made. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) was good enough to indicate, first, the support of the Opposition for the Government’s proposal and, second, to go on and say that certain regulations made under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act would probably- as a consequence of this measure becoming law- have to be amended. I am happy to tell the honourable gentleman that I understand it is the intention of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) to make such amendments, which will give further effect to methods of dealing with the social mischief which he described so eloquently in his second reading speech. I should also like briefly to say in reply to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) that we try to be courteous but we also try to be helpful. I have written to Senator Greenwood on the subject setting out the general circumstances of the necessity to amend the regulation.

Mr Howard:

– When? We have not received a letter.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It has been sent to him and it should have reached him. It may not have been passed on to the honourable member for Bennelong but it has been sent. Those are the prime reasons for the introduction of this Bill. It is introduced in the context that the present law on the subject is all State law. It is in different forms. It is somewhat old fashioned and out of date in many ways. This Bill is considered by the Government to be a general improvement on the situation that exists at the moment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Proposed new clause 4.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I move:

The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new clause 4 in the Bill to amend the Crimes Act further by adding a new section 92 to the Crimes Act.

Mr Enderby:

– I rise to order. My point of order is that it is not in compliance with the Standing Orders that such an amendment can be moved. At this stage, I say nothing about the merits of the amendment except to say that the Government certainly has not had an opportunity to consider it. In terms of the amendment being in compliance with the Standing Orders I direct your attention, Mr Chairman, to standing order 227 which states:

Any amendment may be moved to any part of the Bill, provided that same be within the title or relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the standing orders of the House.

If one looks at the Bill one will find it is a Bill to amend the Crimes Act for the purposes of the protection of the property of certain organisations. It is for the protection of the property of the unions in this particular case. It is pursuant to that title that the amendment to add proposed new clause 4, which would insert proposed new section 92 into the Crimes Act, is moved. That, of course, will make it a crime for a person to, in effect, steal, take from or convert property belonging to an association- to take from a union. The title of the Bill is to achieve the protection of the property of unions and to make it a crime for people to steal from unions. That is putting it as simply as I can. The amendment would have to be consistent with that title and those purposes.

If one looks at the amendment we find that it has nothing to do with protecting the property of certain organisations. Neither does it have anything to do with stealing from those organisations. What is does is seek to create quite a different kind of offence. It seeks to make it an offence- and it may well be proper that such an offence should be proscribed under our law- by menaces, threat or mtimidation of any kind to whomsoever directed, to compel people of other groups- not the associations covered by this Bill- to give money to the associations. In other words, the Opposition is seeking to make it an offence to enrich unions, not to steal from unions. That is not consistent with the title. It is not consistent with the purpose of the Bill.

Mr Howard:

– I rise to speak to the point of order. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with other categories of behaviour by officers, members or employees of organisations registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Bill as it now stands deals with certain categories of behaviour. Those are covered in clause 3 of the Bill. It outlaws behaviour of the type specified in clause 3 by officials, members or employees of particular organisations. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to extend the ambit of the Bill and to deal with another aspect of the behaviour of those officers, members or employees.

I would ask you, Mr Chairman, in ruling on the point of order taken by the AttorneyGeneral, to bear in mind that the Bill attempts to deal with the behaviour of certain categories of people and the Opposition’s amendment deals with the behaviour of the same categories of people. Therefore, I would submit, that the amendment is clearly within the terms of standing order 227 as the subject matter of the Bill is the behaviour of officers, members or employees of organisations registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the subject matter of the amendment is likewise the behaviour of officers, members or employees of organisations registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-I have considered the point of order raised by the AttorneyGeneral. The honourable member for Bennelong will appreciate that I allowed him quite a lengthy explanation in speaking to the point of order. I will have to uphold the point of order. As the honourable member for Bennelong says, the Bill deals with a certain category of persons. It deals also with the protection of property of certain organisations. The amendment takes the category of persons and then extends the resultant questions to other than the certain organisations that are contained within the title of the Bill. As such, I would have to rule the amendment out of order.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 418

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 May 1975 on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ENDERBY (CanberraAttorneyGeneral) Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on the Australian National University Bill 1975, 1 would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1975, as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on the 2 measures? As there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The purpose of the Austraiian National University Bill 1975 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1975 now before the House is to put into legislative form decisions which have been taken and put into effect in relation to universities and colleges of advanced education in the States. They follow as a consequence of the Government’s announced proposals that certain fees payable by undergraduate students at university should be abolished. With regard to the States, this could be done by policy announcement of the Government or by the funding by this Government of the State governments with the request by this Government that State governments where necessary amend the statutes governing universities and colleges of advanced education. So, in the States where there were requirements upon universities in their statutes and where there were requirements in the legislation setting up colleges of advanced education that those bodies charge a fee, the States have now appropriately amended the relevant legislation.

When the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) intoduced the 2 Bills which are now the subject of this debate, he asked that the matters be speedily dealt with. They were not dealt with as speedily as he then hoped. There was no great need to delay them a long time because there is no dispute with regard to the passage of this legislation. The Opposition supports the proposals because, in dealing with these 2 Bills, we are acting in relation to these 2 institutions as State governments would act in relation to their colleges of advanced education and their universities. The principal purpose of these Bills is to authorise the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education to admit undergraduate students without charging fees. The Bills do specify that they can charge certain types of fees, that is, those that are not fees in respect of tuition but rather fees and charges for university student unions, sporting associations and the like.

In the case of the Australian National University Bill, there are 2 other amendments which the Opposition supports. The first expands the membership of the Australian National University Council by allowing for admission to that council of a representative of the staff of that university. The Opposition supports that proposal. The other amendment which we applaud is the clarification of the powers of the Council of the Australian National University with regard to the statutes that it itself can make. Under the Act as it now reads, that Council has power to deal with the terms upon which students become matriculants for entry to the University. In these days when there is an effort to broaden the opportunities of people to expand their education by entering tertiary institutions and, in particular, universities, to confine the power of the Council to regulations relating to matriculation is, if one puts a strict interpretation on that word, to limit the opportunities for tertiary education to people who have obtained traditional academic qualifications at secondary level in the form of matriculation examinations.

We, therefore, are very keen to indicate our support for the amendment to this statutemaking power on the part of the Council of the Australian National University to enable it to make statutes with regard to the matriculation, admission and enrolment of students. We have in mind that this change will clarify the position and, in so clarifying, expand the capacity of the Council to admit as students to the University people who in their later life wish to complete a university course but who find that at the time when they undertook their primary education followed by secondary education they did not qualify at the traditional matriculation examinations. The provision of an expanded opportunity to obtain further education is deserving of further study so that more and more people who in the more mature years of their fife want to undertake further university study will be able to do so. That is particularly relevant at a time when, as they have found in recent years, universities are finding it necessary to impose quotas on admissions to a large number of courses, if not to all courses. The imposition of those quotas has tended to restrict entry to universities to those who have qualified academically in school examinations.

I think all honourable members are aware that some of the most brilliant scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and members of other professions are those who have come up through a training based on practical experience and for whom the development of their abilities has come later in life. In the past many such people have found it difficult to qualify themselves by attaining university degrees because of the rather strict requirements with regard to matriculation as a means of entry into universities. I hope that this sort of matter will be examined closely and that adequate opportunity will be given to more and more of the people who in later life find that through the experience of life they have an aptitude for university study. I hope that the basis for admission to such courses will not be restricted to the passing of the formal and traditional matriculation examination. Insofar as this legislation will enable that type of person to undertake degree courses at the Australian National University, we members of the Opposition applaud the measure.

As I indicated in my opening remark, these pieces of legislation are designed to put into practice and to confirm a course of action that has been in operation now for nearly 2 years. In that respect the legislation is retrospective because it authorises the 2 institutions concerned not to collect fees, although under their existing statutes they may have had an obligation to do so in respect of the 1974 year and so much of 1975 as has already passed. We join with the Minister in his expressed desire and hope that these 2 Bills will receive a speedy passage.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I want to speak very briefly in support of these Bills. Both of the organisations mentioned in them- the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education- are in my electorate. They are, of course, very important national institutions. Apart from the political or moral desirability of increasing the representation of students on the Council of the Australian National University from one to three, I suggest that the proposed changes are in accordance with the changes in society generally and the aspirations of the Government to ensure that people are represented at all levels. A few statistics about the student population of the ANU may be of interest to honourable members. The ANU has made very significant growth. Its student population now stands at about 5500. Of those, about two-thirds are full time students and about one-third are part time students. The ANU plays a very significant part in relation to the education of people within the Public Service in Canberra and has been largely responsible for the quite large percentage of graduates in the Public Service.

The deletion of the reference to matriculation, of course, will only regularise what is actually happening within the the University. At present there is no matriculation requirement. A person is either admitted or not admitted. The matriculation requirement has no relevance to the present situation. It is therefore quite right that any reference to it should be deleted. It is quite well known, of course, that within some of the other universities people who have satisfied the matriculation requirements are not necessarily admitted. Such a requirement is quite irrelevant and out of place in this situation.

The Canberra College of Advanced Education is a fairly recently established institution. It is not so many years ago that the foundation stone of this institution was laid by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton). It has made quite remarkable progress. It is now in the top ten of some ninety similar institutions. The College has quite a broad national role to play in that among other things, it provides education for quite a number of overseas students and provides special courses in local government. For those reasons this institution attracts students from a very wide field. As a matter of fact, more than 800 students at the CCAE come from outside of Canberra. The abolition of fees has resulted in some changes being made in the content and make-up of the students. There are now many more mature students at the College. That reflects the use to which the employees of the Public Service put the College. Many of them are people who have degees and are seeking further education. So, the College is playing a very valuable role in relation to government and the Public Service. A wide range of courses is available. The courses are generally vocationally oriented. They have been developed to fit the needs as they have emerged in the community. The progress that the College has made in the very few years in which it has been in existence is quite remarkable. It now has 4500 students. The pressure being exerted on the courses available at the College is continuing to grow.

An interesting development has occurred at the College in relation to the provision of accommodation. I think that it is one of the first institutionsit is certainly the first in the Australian Capital Territory- to provide communal-type accommodation in which students are given separate rooms but share communal kitchens. That is in contrast to the full board accommodation that is provided at other institutions. This new development has taken place because of certain demands by the students. The general feeling among the students was that what was being provided was more than what was being asked for and was unnecessarily expensive. Students were paying $25 to $30 a week for full board, which they did not always want and could not always afford. Under the new arrangements students pay for their accommodation- their rooms- and share a kitchen and provide their own food. Of course, they can do that much more cheaply. I think that costs them something like $8 or $10 a week. That is a new development which has proved to be very successful. I know that it is now being followed in other institutions. Generally, the CCAE has been a very progressive institution. It has served its purpose well and I am sure that it will continue to do so.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-There is no need to delay the passage of these 2 pieces of legislation. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), who represents the shadow Minister for Education in this House, these Bills simply seek to bring into line a situation that has operated for some time. They refer primarily to the abolition of the payment of fees for tuition. The Opposition Parties have supported the Government’s policy of assisting students at tertiary institutions by that means. I can only say that we wish these Bills a speedy passage through the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 420

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 May 1975, on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. (Quorum formed.)

page 421

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 3) 1975 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 May 1975, on motion by Dr Cass:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-The Minister for the Media (Dr Cass) in his second reading speech indicated that this Bill flows from a report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices presented to Parliament in November 1973. On the basis of 3 preparations a general recommendation was made for the compulsory disclosure of individual cost of manufacturer by drug companies. As the report was presented in November 1973 it has had a long gestation. The Bill was given its first reading here in May and it again comes before the House, the implication being that the Bill is obviously not considered urgent by the Government.

I think really the events that have taken place since the report on prices was presented indicate that in many ways the Government has changed its mind, that at that time it was very much in an ideological ‘hit everything in private industry’ phase. Now it appears to be relenting somewhat. But the Bill as it now stands gives frightening power to the Director-General of Health and through him to 3 unknown people in the Department of Health who form the pricing bureau and who decide what prices will be paid to drug manufacturers for prescription drugs dispensed under the national health scheme. In fact one could call the Director-General of Health a drug dictator when he received this power. The legislation would give him, or through him the pricing bureau, the power to make or break companies that could be employing thousands of people. It gives them the power to decide whether or not a company will continue in Australia. No other department, no other person to my knowledge, would have such power over people in this country, nor for that matter in this area of drug revelation and cost, in any other western country.

The Government has not spelt out a clear requirement for this legislation. In fact some of its later actions have been contradictory. On the one hand it used to claim that the cost of drugs was too high. Now a committee has been established on an informal basis between the Department of Health and some of the drug manufacturers to look at the possibility of increasing drug prices because of the implications of bankruptcy and unemployment in the drug manufacturing field.

The present situation was not explained to the Joint Committee on Prices at the time when it made its recommendation. I think that the extent of the knowledge available to the Depanment of Health is not generally known. There is a voluntary arrangement with the drug companies which I am told is gaining increasing acceptance. The present arrangement allows for a certain amount of give and take between the Department and companies in which the Department says: ‘Well, we will let you have the price on this article but we want a cut in something else’. I believe this approach is better for the overall Australian community and the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

The Department has available to it information from other countries. In particular it has available the cost of drugs from those countries which do not belong to the international patent convention. In other words, these countries do not support patent rights and offer drugs free of patent on the international market. The Department also has available to it information on the general wage level, the cost of packaging and manufacturing and so on. In addition to the Department of Health having this information available to it the Taxation Office has a special group which is investigating pharmaceutical companies. I understand that 28 of the major drug manufacturers in this country have had this special taxation team going right through their premises and books to ensure that there is no double dealing between an Australian offshoot of a foreign company- and certainly most of the major drug companies in Australia are multinationalsand to see that there is no double dealing in regard to transfer prices, technical arrangements or contractual arrangements of any kind. I believe that is right and proper, but I also believe that this indicates the degree of surveillance already provided to see that drugs sold to the Government through the pharmaceutical benefits arrangements are sold at a reasonable price.

I would like to say something about the price of drugs sold in Australia compared to the price in other countries. I have seen tables for Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Britain, West Germany and New Zealand which indicate that some of the prices we pay are above those paid in other countries, and some are less. I think that is probably a reasonable situation. Certainly Australia is not one of the most expensive drug countries in the world. If one looks at the cost of drugs to the Government under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme it can be seen that the actual cost of drugs has fallen by 16 per cent in the last 10 years. This has taken place during a time of rapid inflation. At a time when the actual cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme has escalated the cost of drugs has generally fallen. The Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) acknowledged this in his second reading speech on the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits Charges) Bill which he made in this House yesterday when he stated:

Fortunately, the rises in the wholesale prices of drugs listed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme have not been as great as for the more labour intensive health services.

He is at least acknowledging that there have not been the runaway price increases. If one looks at the average cost of a prescription under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, one will find that the actual percentage going to the drug manufacturer is failing. This is because the labour intensive sector of the total payment for the benefit, in particular the chemist, is rising because of our rapid inflation.

There are some fundamental issues in this question of the revelation of drug costs. The first is whether we want Australian production of pharmaceuticals. Do we want the technology that this production in Australia brings with it? Do we want the employment that this brings with it? Do we want the continuity of supply that this brings with it? If we do- and I believe that we do and that it is to the benefit of Australiathen it is no good persecuting drug companies. One cannot have it both ways. It certainly would be possible to buy cheaper drugs on the international market from time to time, but one would miss out on all those other things including the guarantee of supply. One would also miss out on something which tends sometimes to make drugs more expensive in Australia than some other countries, and that is our stricter code of good manufacturing practice. I believe that it is correct that we should have a strict code to enforce quality standards not only for prescription drugs, but for over-the-counter drugs. The danger of losing production in Australia is not just an idle thought. It is just about here and now. For example, penicillin production in Australia was carried out by 3 companies. I think that it is now down to 2 companies and in fact the second company, Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd, has closed production for the time being and has dismissed 70 people from its plant. To my knowledge, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory is the only remaining manufacturer in Australia of penicillin and its derivatives at present. In the next few weeks or few months, there will be a report from the Industries Assistance Commission.

Mr Chipp:

– Who owns that company?

Mr LLOYD:

-The Government owns CSL. One can see from the Budget that the Government subsidy for CSL is double what it was in the previous Budget. In the next few weeks there will be a report on tariff protection for penicillin. If, as the rumours have it, the recommendation is that there be no tariff protection for penicillin, it will mean one of two things: CSL stops production of penicillin or the Government subsidy to CSL is increased dramatically. That is a real crunch point as to whether or not we want to have in this country some of the production, some of the technology and some of the employment

I mentioned earlier that presently there is actually a special committee comprising officers of the Department of Health and some manufacturers who are looking at this cost price squeeze of drug manufacturers in Australia. As a result, a number of drugs have been increased in price in the last 2 months. These are increases in price agreed to by the Government. I believe that that attitude, when compared with the Bill which we have before us, is contradictory. It certainly does not indicate a clear government policy and certainly does not provide the situation for this Bill to be accepted as it stands at present.

This Bill, as it is now, as I said earlier, gives frightening power to the Director-General of Health or to these 3 unknown people in the pricing bureau. For example, it places no limitation on the amount of information which can be required from a drug manufacturer. It allows no reasonable time limit for that manufacturer to provide that information. It allows no accounting of the overall profitability of the drug company in examining the cost of a particular drug. When one looks at the drug industry, one sees that so much depends on one or two particular drugs in respect of which the results of research have put a company ahead of others. This drug may have saved the lives of thousands of people. In this legislation, no account is to be taken of research costs or the overall profitability of the pharmaceutical section of a company. One should certainly not have to take into account a veterinary side or a cosmetic side of a company, but certainly the pharmaceutical section of the company should be considered.

There is also no guarantee of confidentiality of the information obtained. There is no provision for any independent arbitrator. Everything is decided by this pricing bureau. I would believe as a minimum requirement that there should be some sort of arbitration arrangement. There is also the question of whether the establishment of a pricefixing power by one, two or three people in a department is constitutional when this country has not accepted a referendum in favour of price fixing. If one looks at what is required in other countries, such as Great Britain, one finds that there certainly is a requirement for information. I am told that in Britain this is basically in the form of a report on the profitability of a particular company rather than on individual drugs. When I was in Britain, I was told that in some cases the Government itself helps the company because of the importance to Britain of its export market.

In New Zealand, information is required on imported drugs, not by the Department of Health, but by the Department of Trade for other reasons. In the United States of America at present there is discussion of lowering drug costs. This centres around America’s Medicare or Medicaid programs, where there is Government financial support for drug prescriptions, where generic drugs are prescribed- this is only a small percentage- and where it is shown by the Food and Drug Administration that all the drugs prescribed have the same therapeutic value. When this is all sorted out, the medical practitioner will be required to prescribe drugs at the lowest cost. But none of the proposals make the demands on the drug companies for which this legislation will provide.

This leads one to ask what is the genuine reason for the Government wanting this legislation. Is it something to do with its ambitions in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals? Is there also the question of unfair competition from a Government subsidised and supported company? This brings us to the interesting question of Fawnmac Industries Pty Ltd. This was purchased by the Government recently and I have here a Press statement of the Minister for Health in which several things are stated. One in particular is:

It would also give the Government reliable information about the basic production costs associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing.

If the purchase of this company gives the Government this information, why does it want this legislation? If one were suspicious, one could say that perhaps the Government wants this information on individual drugs from other companies so that it can pass this information on to the company that it now owns and provide unfair competition.

There is also the question of the suitability to the taxpayers of Australia of the Fawnmac purchase. The Press release at the time stated that

Fawnmac had cost $6m. In the Budget on Tuesday night, we learned that the purchase of Fawnmac had cost $8.4m- a slight discrepancy of $2.4m. That is no mean figure when one is handling the taxpayers ‘ money. I think that any explanation on this discrepancy would be welcomed by the people of Australia and certainly by the Opposition. But one could look more closely at the Fawnmac purchase. Was it a good buy or was it goodbye to a lot of taxpayers’ money? I have some information on this matter. It has been very difficult to obtain. My office telephoned the manager of Fawnmac to obtain copies of the annual report to ascertain the degree of profitability of this company. This information was refused. We then approached the Victorian Corporate Affairs Office to obtain information about Fawnmac Industries and obtained particulars of the shareholding but not of the profitability. I was informed:

As disclosed by the returns, the companies are exempt proprietary companies and as such exempt from lodging at this office copies of their annual reports and financial statements.

The shareholders in those companies, who appear to be very few and who appear to be members of the management, which is continuing under the new arrangements, have done very well out of this purchase by the Government.

I hope that the Government will provide for Parliament full details on the profitability of the Fawnmac purchase and some good reasons why it was necessary to buy this company with taxpayers’ money. I have been told that this company was for sale for $2m for two or three years. I trunk it was the only company that the Government could purchase because it was the only one with a manufacturing capability that was for sale. Since the purchase- as I said, the previous ownership has continued in management- the manager has sent letters to overseas suppliers to the company to the effect that as the company is now an Australian Government instrumentality special treatment will be provided. These letters have gone to eastern European countries and China, among others.

This raises the very serious question of the action of the Government in purchasing this company, both for financial reasons and for policy reasons, and how much this piece of legislation is tied in with its ambition, at all costs to the taxpayers, to get into drug manufacture, because there appear to be very few lines of special selling ability and the plant is not of particularly noteworthy capability.

Will special treatment be given to the Fawnmac company by the Government? The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, the long-standing government corporation, requires a significant subsidy. I do not criticise the subsidy for CSL, because CSL is required to manufacture vaccines and other products which are not commercially available. But it still raises the general question of efficiency of any government drug company. If the Government is sincere in wanting to cut drug costs, then perhaps it should be looking at its own actions rather than at the actions of the private drug companies to the degree that it is. I certainly support the need for careful evaluation and checking of what any drug company may put up as a reasonable price.

At the present time there is an Industries Assistance Commission hearing on pharmaceutical and veterinary products. The matter was referred to the Commission some time ago by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). I am told that this investigation has turned into a general investigation of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, and I think that is a good thing. I think it is good that we find out what the true position is because we have not been told yet. I am told that the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, within the last two or three weeks, has presented a 50-page submission to this hearing on costs of production and cost structure. This to me is important information for the IAC to have. Because of this, the Opposition has decided that this legislation should be deferred until the Industries Assistance Commission report is completed and published and everybody on both sides of the Parliament and outside Parliament in the general public has had the opportunity to see what is the position with regard to drug manufacture.

The Commission’s inquiry was initiated by the present Government. Therefore it sees this as a matter for genuine and serious concern. We in the Opposition see it as a matter of genuine and serious concern. I think it is a reasonable proposition to defer this legislation until that report is presented. After all, it is not as if the Government has wanted this legislation urgently because, as we are told, this legislation is based on a simple recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices almost 2 years ago, in November 1973. So if we have to wait another two or three months or however many months- I do not think it will be more than 6 months- until this report is out, I think it is reasonable to request a deferral of this Bill. If the Government wants the information earlier, it can tell the IAC that it wants it earlier.

Until now the Government has not made a case for its legislation. Much of its action, particularly recently, has been contrary to the points contained in this legislation, which, as I say, stem from an earlier, more ideological period. When we have the information from the IAC, a final decision can be made whether or not to accept the legislation. I issue a warning that if the Opposition is to accept the legislation- I am not saying that it will- major amendments will be required to. guarantee confidentiality, the inclusion of overall profitability, of reasonable time limits and of reasonable requirements on information provided and on the question of an independent arbitrator so that everything is not only above board and just but is seen to be just. If the public can see the position more clearly rather than there being a hidden bureau, that is probably all the better also. I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Hodges:

– I second the amendment.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

-The National Health Bill was introduced by the Minister for the Media (Dr Cass) acting for the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham). It requires drug manufacturers and distributors to furnish the Government with information on prices and costs of pharmaceutical benefits. It was interesting to listen to the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who showed a tremendous concern for the drug manufacturers and distributors. I wish that he would show the same concern for the consumer and for the taxpayer who foots the bill for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The introduction of this Bill follows a recommendation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices, whose membership includes representatives from all parties, in its first report in November 1973. The recommendation said that the National Health Act should be amended to allow the Department of Health to obtain cost and financial information in respect of products in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

There is at present no power under the National Health Act to require that the Government be given the details of costing. All we can do is foot the bill, even though 80 per cent of all dispensed medicines are supplied under the provisions of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This is tantamount to the Government signing a blank cheque in the name of the taxpayer, who foots the bill, and it leaves the Department of Health dependent on negotiations with drug manufacturers and distributors to try to achieve fair and reasonable prices for pharmaceutical benefit items. One has only to look at the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme over past years to see the extent to which the prices have escalated. It would be an irresponsible government, and certainly an irresponsible opposition, which was not prepared in some way to try to see that we pay fair and reasonable prices for anything that goes on to the pharmaceutical benefits list. While such negotiations can be successfully conducted with mutual co-operation, if a satisfactory price cannot be arrived at an item may have to be removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list, and this is certainly not in the public interest. Indeed, it could lead to medical, physical and financial hardship on the part of an individual dependent on a particular doctor’s prescription, who would have to pay the full cost of a certain drug removed from the list. If this legislation is deferred until a report is presented by the Industries Assistance Commission on the whole drug industry, very many consumers may have to pay the full cost of the drugs they need for their health’s sake. I consider waiting for an IAC report quite irrelevant to this Bill. We still have to protect the consumer and protect the taxpayer who foots the bill for pharmaceutical benefits whatever the result of the IAC investigation. As the Government in this instance is really acting as an agent for the taxpayers, it would be completely irresponsible not to make every effort to control to some extent the cost of the drugs on the pharmaceutical list.

The provisions of this Bill are designed to protect the taxpayers from excessive prices being set for some items which are manufactured in a monopoly situation by some drug companies. As the Australian Government heavily subsidises the purchase of the vast bulk of prescription drugs, it is only reasonable to require drug manufacturers to provide full financial information to justify the prices charged for medicines included on the pharmaceutical list and especially when they control the patents. Such information will be provided in the same way as information is provided in income tax returns. It will be completely confidential and certainly will not be in danger of being disclosed to competitors which I imagine is probably the main worry that drug manufacturers have in this respect.

The suggestion that the Bill be withdrawn until the Industries Assistance Commission has completed its report on the protection of the pharmaceutical industry is really a red herring in this case and it shows an irresponsible attitude on the part of the Opposition. The IAC is examining the viability of the industry as a whole in terms of tariff protection which is really a different area. The Bill relates to the protection of the consumer. There is no reason for the Department of Health to delay negotiations with individual companies over the pricing of drugs marketed in Australia as this is a separate although it may be a related issue. The proposal by the Opposition to defer consideration of this Bill is rather confusing. The introduction into this debate of the Fawnmac purchase I found irrelevant. I was tempted to take a point of order but I thought I would hear what the honourable member had to say. However, it was really another red herring.

Does the Opposition believe that the Government should allow the price of drugs to be inflated at the will of the industry and to heck with what the consumer, who, incidentally, is the taxpayer, has to pay for them? Such an interpretation is unworthy of any Party which claims to champion the public interest and which advocates an unrelenting attack on inflation and restraint on Government expenditure. I would have thought that the Opposition would have supported this Bill right up to the hilt on that point alone. The hypocrisy of the Opposition is all too apparent. If the Opposition is sincere in its statements that Government spending must be restrained, then it will fully support this Bill. If it is not just paying lip service to its statements that prices must not gallop ahead of the electorate’s ability to pay, then it will support this BDI. The Government cannot sign a blank cheque on behalf of the taxpayers in the way that the Opposition when it was in office signed blank cheques to buy the F- 1 1 1 aircraft.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-Before giving my reasons for supporting the Opposition ‘s stand on this Bill I want to take up a point that was made by the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child). She asserted that waiting for the report of the Industries Assistance Commission will perhaps prevent drugs from coming on to the pharmaceutical list. That is a red herring if ever I have heard one. I want first of all to draw attention to a statement that was made this morning by Britain’s Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. He said that ‘too great a squeeze being placed on companies would result in lower profits and create more unemployment’. I think this is a very pertinent comment and that a very similar situation will no doubt arise if this Government is given the opportunity under this Bill to put the ringer just a little harder on the drug companies. I will develop that argument a little later on.

Mr James:

– Profits.

Mr HODGES:

-The honourable member talks about profits. If he knew what he was talking about, if he had a look at the figures as I will explain in a few moments in relation to a breakdown of the figures on total health expenditure for 1973-74, hie would know that drug companies in Australia are not making very high profits. Of course one must also consider the employment opportunities which drug companies provide, the fact that the drug manufacturing business can expand and thereby provide many more employment opportunities in this country. If you have capital invested in this industry, as many people have, obviously you want a return on your capital. I do not hear any Government supporter saying he will lend money to anybody without a reasonable return on his capital. I am not here to defend the large companies but surely they are entitled to make a profit for their shareholders. They are entitled to make a profit so that they can operate their business and provide employment for Australians.

The urgency for this Bill appears to have arisen from the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices. As the Prices Justification Tribunal is now carrying out virtually the same function as the Prices Committee, I want to refer to a comment by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in November last year in relation to the Prices Justification Tribunal. He said: to give particular attention to the problems of sustaining and stimulating an adequate level of private investment and maintaining rates of return on capital which will induce new investment required to maintain economic growth and employment.

That is the very point I was making a little earlier and the very point that Britain’s Prime Minister, Mr Wilson, made today.

I want to refer to the Prices Committee. I am currently a member of this Committee. I was not a member of the Committee when it brought down the report containing the section referred to in the second reading speech delivered by the then Acting Minister for Health, Dr Cass. I want to refer to this Committee because I believe that it is somewhat redundant. I also believe that the Prices Justification Tribunal has failed dismally in its attempts, has done nothing more than to produce a lot of extra unemployment and has created a lot of hardship in business in this country. I believe that the Prices Justification Tribunal should be abolished. In relation particularly to the personnel of the present Prices Committee, not the personnel at the time when this report was produced- I say this with due respect to my fellow parliamentarians who sit on this Committeeit is interesting to note that during one of the earlier meetings of the Committee I asked members of the Committee whether any of them had ever had any business experience. The answer, with the exception of myself, was that none of them had had any business experience. I do not subscribe to this view and do not suggest that if a person is going to be the Minister for Health he should be a doctor or he should be a lawyer if he were going to be the Attorney-General or an engineer if he were going to hold a portfolio that had something to do with Works. Nevertheless I believe that experience in a particular field can be an advantage. The point I make is that I believe that at least some of the personnel who comprise these committees should have experience and expertise in the subject that is being examined.

As the Acting Minister for Health pointed out in the second reading speech, this Bill resulted from the report of the Prices Committee. The actual recommendation of the Committee was quoted by the Acting Minister who also went on to state that 80 per cent of all dispensed medicines are supplied under the provisions of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. So that is the basis upon which this Bill is now before us. In his second reading speech he also said that negotiations are currently carried out between departmental officers and the drug companies concerned. He said that in some instances there was a failure to achieve satisfactory prices. He went on to say:

If a satisfactory price cannot be achieved an item may be removed from the list of pharmaceutical benefits.

He further stated that such de-listing may not, however, always be in the public interest because of the therapeutic value of a particular drug. It has been my experience, as a pharmacist for some 20 years, that no company wants its product to be de-listed. If a satisfactory price cannot be achieved, then the company has no alternative but to have the product removed. What the Government is saying is that it knows best how to run the pharmaceutical industry and, in particular, the company that applies for a drug to be listed.

I want to dwell a little on quality. I believe that the quality of the drugs we receive in this country is extremely important and that no inferior drugs should be introduced. I believe that the Government would agree with that. Drug research is extremely important. It may not be quite so important in this country, but one has only to look overseas to realise that the large and reputable drug companies are providing the greater proportion of the new drugs that come on to the market. I mention them as distinct from a number of smaller companies- the backyard operators, as they are sometimes called- which in the main do very little research.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that 19 new drugs were introduced to medicine in the United States of America in 1973, and 13 of them were from American pharmaceutical companies’ research. In 1974, 18 new drugs appeared in the United States, I2¥i from America and 12 were developed in American pharmaceutical companies. Of the 37 new drugs appearing in 1973-74, 35te were developed by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Twenty-six manufacturers were involved in the United States marketing of the 37 new drugs. It is notable that during that period no new drugs appeared from the socialist countries, other than Sweden- and its new drugs were developed earlier in a free enterprise society.

Mr Lloyd:

– Are the socialist societies drugged, do you think?

Mr HODGES:

-They are drugged, and they produce no new valuable drugs for the world.

Mr James:

– They have fewer drug addicts.

Mr HODGES:

-That is debatable. I would like the honourable member to produce some figures to back up that statement. Does the Government intend to require every supplier to supply the cost structure of all goods it purchases? Let us go outside the pharmaceutical field. Will the Government squeeze suppliers and manufacturers and cause the companies to face liquidity problems, to reduce their overheads and thereby add to the unemployment market? I wonder whether it will require companies overseas, perhaps those from which we purchase our defence equipment and aircraft, to produce detailed statements of all their costs.

I want to refer for a moment to the dear image of pharmacy, because it is closely linked with this Bill. It is true that pharmacy in this country has a dear image. I believe that that image is not warranted. The public has gained the impression that all master pharmacists are rich. I can assure honourable members that that is not the case. It is interesting to note that at the moment hundreds of pharmacies in Australia are for sale and there are no buyers. It is also interesting to note that in the last few years hundreds of pharmacies in Australia have closed down. The manufacturers have been labelled as making excessive profits.

In his second reading speech the then Acting Minister for Health referred to patented drugs and stated that the voluntary system had not always been successful in obtaining information from manufacturers on costs of patented drugs. Let me point out that in the vast majority of cases this information is supplied voluntarily to departmental officers. Let us look at this question of patented drugs. I mentioned a little earlier the numbers of new drugs that have been introduced in the United States. It is interesting to note the patent rights that are applied for and granted on the discovery of drugs. One must look at some of the wonderful advances we have seen over the past 20 or 30 years. I refer to antibiotics, penicillins, tetracyclines, antihistamines, antidepressant drugs and drugs to treat cardiac disease, just to name a few. These have been patented by the companies that have produced them. The discovery of and research into drugs is a highly expensive business. It requires expensive and complex equipment and highly skilled research personnel. I might add that countless thousands of drugs are developed which, when tested, are found to be not effective, perhaps unsafe or no more effective than existing drugs. Therefore, successfully developed new drugs are indeed rare.

I ask: Who is to sit in judgment on the price received for these hard won patented drugs? Will it be the Minister for Health or some of his bureaucrats? After all, if this happens and if drug companies are to be screwed and squeezed to such an extent that they do not receive a reasonable return on their outlay, we are going to jeopardise drug research in the future. In my opinion drug research would grind to a halt in exactly the same way as oil and mineral search in this country has ground to a halt. I daresay that if the drug companies had a budget deficit in the order, proportionately, of this Government’s Budget deficit it would be catastrophic for the industry.

I want to go into the question of quality because I believe that is very important. It is important to the Government because we hear so much about improving the quality of life of those people who are less fortunate than many of us. I agree that we should endeavour to uplift the quality of life, particularly for those less fortunate people. Therefore, I find it difficult to reconcile the Government’s attitude in this area. After all, it must be interested in quality. I would hope that the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham), who is a medical practitioner, would be interested in the quality of the drugs that we bring on to the market in this country. It is a well known fact that if one reduces the price one often gets cheap and nasty goods. These cheaper brands are more likely to be of less therapeutic efficacy than those brands in respect of which greater care in manufacture is observed and more advanced techniques and better quality control are exercised.

The extent to which active therapeutic agents are absorbed is influenced by many factors, which incidentally may be compounded. I take the example of tablets, which represent by far the greatest form of intake of drugs today. The tableting process is important because of the crystal size of the drug, the excipients or the inert substances that are added to facilitate the division of dosage and to allow for granulation prior to the tableting process, the method of the admixture of the drug in the excipients, the type of quality controls employed during stages of manufacture and, of course, the disintegration of the tablet in the stomach after it is taken- not to mention the experience of the personnel who produce the tablets and the developed technology that comes only with many years of experience. The time the drug takes to disintegrate and to be freed in the stomach is extremely important when a tablet is taken. I can cite examples of patients coming back to my shop and telling me that a certain enteric coated tablet that was designed to be swallowed and to disintegrate in the abdomen had not disintegrated but had passed through and come out in the faeces. The enteric coated processes and film, coated processes which are used by some companies are processes which have been developed over many years. It is important that in the selection of processes we do not disadvantage these companies by screwing and squeezing their profits to such a great extent. If we look at the generic medicines, as they are commonly referred to, we find that those companies which do not indulge in research tend to produce the bigger volume drugs which are the more profitable ones and leave research to the larger companies. I hope that the Minister for Health who is at the table will agree that quality control is of the utmost importance.

Of course one must also look at brand prescribing. As the Minister no doubt appreciates doctors often brand prescribe selectively when prescribing medicines. We had an instance fairly recently where doctors and chemists were advised that a particular type of heart preparation should be adhered to according to the brand which the patient had been taking over a period of time. Although the dosage was the same in other brands they suggested it was wise to keep the patient on the brand to which he had become accustomed. If we look at the total expenditure for 1973-74 we find that a little over $3 billion was spent on health and yet prescription medicines required $299m. Of that amount the manufacturers’ profit ended up at $10. 3m. The chemists’ share was $107m and the wholesalers’ share $24m. The manufacturers’ share was $ 168m. It was interesting to note that on the previous year there was a fall from 3.6 per cent to 3.4 per cent in the manufacturers’ profit in the total cost -of medicines. I believe we have to be extremely careful that we do not apply too many restrictions to drug manufacturers in this country because the country ‘s health is at stake.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-I join inthe debate on the National Health Bill (No. 3) because on reading the Bill and listening to the various speakers from the Government side I feel that one or two areas are being glossed over. In my opinion the Bill refers mainly to the monetary side of the drug industry. When one looks at that one hardly ever notices that the highest profit making and highest dividend issuing companies in Australia are the drug houses. I wonder what is the purpose behind this Bill. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) quite adequately explained on the technical side how one of the most comforting things we have in this country is the fact that the drugs which are manufactured here are of a particularly high quality. This quality is brought about by the amount of money the companies concerned are able to put into their research and into the development of their products.

High standards result because some capital is put back into the business. We are all well aware that at the present time it is very difficult for any business to find capital to put back into the business. It is difficult to understand just exactly what this is all about. The honourable member for Petrie mentioned the point of profit. Of course we accept- I am surprised that he did not mention this-that the socialists favour profits in companies. It is a rather staggering thing that they have acknowledged, but they have not worked out exactly what they mean. I do not think they really understand. It really means that if a company can make profits it can keep on going; it can actually keep operating and by doing so it can keep up its employment. I think the socialists ought to be looking at all of these things instead of trying to bring in rules and regulations which will bog down industry. I refer now to clause 3 of the Bill which states:

After section 102 of the Principal Act, the following section is inserted . . .

I shall not read the whole clause. The relevant part states that the Director-General may call for such information as specified in the notice being information that is information with respect to financial matters in relation to the manufacture or distribution of the drug or medicinal preparation including information with respect to prices and costs. I believe that this is starting to eat at the very existence of the free enterprise system in this country.

One wonders exactly what is behind the socialists ‘ emotional attitude that everyone in business is making millions of dollars at the cost of the rest of the community. As I said before, one does not see these people listed as providing the biggest dividends. Why are they not if they are making such huge profits? Surely the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) and his socialist government should take a reasonable attitude and try to promote the free enterprise system which has been the most successful way of producing goods in this country. The industries that are controlled by the Government cannot make profits. This has been proved. This leads me to the next interesting point. I believe this is the real crunch behind this Bill. I draw the attention of honourable members to section 11 of the platform of the Labor Party or the socialist party whichever way its members prefer to be called. Under the section dealing with health sub-section 1 7 reads:

The promotion of the manufacture, bulk purchase and wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical products through the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

I believe that members of the Labor Party have found some hitch in doing that and so they have purchased the Fawnmac company to overcome that problem. But really this is the real thrust of the Bill. It is the start of the whole scheme. The people of this country have to be alerted that any Bill that is put forward by this Government to start to get its meddling fingers into industry is the first step to nationalise that industry. There is no way in the world that this Government is not planning to take on the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceutical goods. On that basis, the Opposition will oppose this Bill. I wanted to bring only that point forward. I felt it was a very relevant point. Sub-section 22 of the same Party platform reads:

The dispensing of prescriptions without direct charge to the patient . . .

Again we have the same system. Everything is being built up for a total socialist system and we will oppose it.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

-The honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) has covered most of the

Government’s case in this matter. The initial speech of the Minister for the Media (Dr Cass) as Acting Minister for Health outlined the intentions of this Bill when he presented it. I will confine myself to answering some of the points raised by members of the Opposition in support of their amendments. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) mentioned, as did the other two speakers for the Opposition, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), the profitability aspect of drug manufacture in Australia and pointed out that the manufacturers’ contributions to the cost of drugs in this country has actually fallen over the last 10 years while the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme escalated. The honourable member further pointed out how a firm was dipping out of production of penicillin manufactured by the Abbotts company. If one follows that logic I suppose one could say that the way things are going even without this Act that we are proposing it looks as though the poor pharmaceutical drug firms and drug manufacturers are going out of business. I suppose if one believes that sort of philosophy one will say that there is a cause for alarm in seeing something happen which will accelerate the failure of pharmaceutical manufacture in Australia. No responsible government wants to see that happen any more than it would like to see it happen to any other vital, essential and worthwhile industry in this country. We do not want to see it fail. Therefore I can assure the honourable members opposite that this is not the intention, nor the object, nor can it be the effect of the legislation- quite the reverse.

If we can get better information, true information, on which to base proper estimates of the profitability of these companies- whether they are going to the wall, whether they will cease to produce these essential drugs- we will be in a far better position to ensure the very thing that they are asking us to ensure, namely, that we maintain the benefits of having this expertise in Australia, having the employment that results, having the technology, the continuity of supply and all these other benefits which are attributed to free enterprise. However, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories also takes a part in this. It provides technology, expertise, employment and continuity of supplies. That was the reason for setting it up. It has nothing to do with free enterprise as such.

Nevertheless, we recognise that there are some benefits in having free enterprise and competition. Otherwise why do we foster a 2-airlines policy? Why do we subsidise private medical practice? Why do we subsidise private retail chemists? This is the Medibank scheme, among others. We even subsidise private hospital accommodation in Australia at a liberal rate. So do not let it be said that because we are extending health benefits to a wider range of people without so much direct cost to the patient and the consumer we are trying to disturb, destroy or displace the private sector. On the contrary, we want to keep the private sector on its toes by giving it a dose of the very medicine that it is prescribing for us- free enterprise competition, fair competition, not unfair competition.

The honourable member for Murray said that it would be cheaper at times for us to buy on world markets. But if we always go for the cheapest item we will then be saddled with all the disadvantages that go with some of the cheap drug markets. Government purchasing officers are not fools. They are not dolts. They have been in the game for a long time under governments of many colours. They buy all sort of things, not only drugs and military hardware. They knowthis is not confined to the drug industry- that certainly if one always goes for the cheapest item one does not always get the best product, and it may end up dearer in the long run because one has used an inferior product. We know all this. It is a complete red herring to suggest that because we get more information of the true cost structure of these firms therefore we will thumb our noses at that information and say: ‘We are not interested in the extra cost of your quality controls because we do not want quality controls; we want the cheapest product’. This is the reverse of the intention of the Bill. So the argument is against the very amendment that the honourable members opposite are proposing.

The point about penicillin manufacture by Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd being discontinued, leaving only one producer in Australia, which happens to be CSL, is not, to my mind, an argument that therefore we will have to double the subsidy to CSL or in some way dramatically increase the subsidy to CSL or have it stop production. It may be that CSL, like Abbotts, will decide within a year or some time of that order that it is not profitable to produce penicillin in Australia., If Abbotts is such a marvellous multinational corporation- I think it is; it has a very successful image in the free enterprise field and in the drug production field irrespective of private or public enterprise- why did it decide to close down production? Evidently because it saw that it was more profitable to buy its penicillin overseas and to have it produced overseas.

If it is good enough for the goose it ought to be good enough for the gander. It ought to be good enough for CSL to make the same decision and say: ‘It now appears because there are huge economies of scale to be obtained by Australia getting its penicillin overseas that CSL also will bow out of” the penicillin production field’. But CSL is not committed to doing that. I believe that it will not. I believe that through the updating procedures which are even now in train it will be able to manufacture fairly and competitively and continue in the future to export penicillin, which it has done in the past in the face of private enterprise competition both in this country and overseas, even though it may be importing some during its retooling period. So that is not an argument for or against the Bill or for the amendment. If anything, it only reinforces the arguments of the Government.

The honourable member for Murray said that there is no clear policy, and that the DirectorGeneral and the three unknown people in the pricing bureau have expounded no clear policy on this Bill or the philosophy on which the Bill is based. I should have thought that it was pretty plain. The Acting Minister in his second reading speech made it pretty plain to me. Surely the crunch comes in the extract he read from the first report in November 1973 of the Joint Committee on Prices- a joint committee, not a Government committee; it has Opposition members on it too- which stated that the National Health Act should be amended to allow the Department of Health to obtain cost and financial information in respect of products in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Although a couple of speakers referred to that report, to my mind none of them gave a convincing answer to why that is not a good enough reason. They have not canvassed the reason put by the Committee.

Let me state briefly the reasons as I see them. The Department depends at the moment on negotiations with the drug manufacturers to arrive at what is considered by both sides to be a fair pricing return for drugs and medicinal preparations listed as pharmaceutical benefits. This is its duty in the public interest, when 80 per cent of prescriptions are in the pharmaceutical benefits listing. Those negotiations have not always been successful. The multi-national corporations particularly are a little shy about these things. They say: ‘You want all this information. We will give it to you if you pass a law’. Surely that is the very reason the Government is seeking to pass a law. The honourable member said that there is already a trend in these firms to give the Government the information, so why does the Government want to force them. The answer is that that trend has its limits. Some of the firms say: ‘Pass the law and then we will give you the information’. That is why the voluntary system will not work.

The honourable member said also that overall profitability is not taken into account when the Government is looking at the pricing of individual products. He cannot have it both ways. Either he wants to give the Government power to get information on the particular products it is considering for listing or has listed as pharmaceutical benefits, or he wants to give the Government power to get all the information about all the financial transactions of all these manufacturers world wide. Now, which one is it that the honourable member wants? If he wants to bring in an amendment to look after that aspect, then his amendment should be that the terms of reference for the information available should be widened to state: ‘We want to know all about your financial affairs world wide, not just information that bears on the pricing of possible pharmaceutical benefits.’ The honourable member did not say that. He just said that the Government is not going to take it into consideration. In fact the Government does. I have met with representatives of the pharmaceutical manufacturers and we have assured them that we are interested in pricing in a total context; we are interested in the survival of the industry; we are interested in maintaining expertise and continuity of supplies, in a reasonable degree of competition to keep people on their toes and to keep quality as a factor. The Government is interested in all these factors, but it has not written them into the Bill because if it did another amendment would be moved to restrict the information that can be made available under the Act. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

The next point is that the honourable member said that there is no provision for confidentiality. This is not so. Confidentiality of information which is obtained under this Bill is provided for under an existing section of the Act. I draw the honourable member’s attention to section 135A of the National Health Act. This came into operation on 1 February of this year. It is very broad. It applies to any person who has acquired any information by reason of his office or employment under the Act. It prohibits any such person from divulging or communicating to another, either directly or indirectly, any information so acquired which concerns the affairs of another except in the performance of a duty or exercise of a function under the Act. The exercise of his function under this proposed new section will be purely for pricing for pharmaceutical benefits purposes. It will have nothing to do with giving information to Fawnmac. It will have nothing to do with giving information to CSL. It will have nothing to do with giving an unfair advantage to public enterprises over private enterprises.

The information obtained under proposed new section 102a will be squarely within the terms of section 135a. The honourable member should revise his opinion. Stringent penalties are provided. The penalty for disclosure in breach of the section is a fine of up to $ 1,000 or imprisonment for up to 3 months. To ensure compliance with section 135a by the officers concerned, access to information obtained within my Department will be very limited. In fact, it is now very limited- so much so, that the honourable member cannot even say who the officers are. Most of the drug firms cannot say who the officers are either, though they may suspect. Even the identity of the officers has, so far, remained confidential.

I am advised that disclosure of this confidential information to Fawnmac or CSL would incur this penalty. In view of the honourable member’s statement that some firms now disclose the information needed for price negotiations then he and the drug firms whose cause he espouses ought to be reassured by the fact that neither CSL nor Fawnmac has benefited in the past from this voluntarily tendered information obtained for the Department by the officers of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau. If it has remained confidential in the past, why should it not in the future? Why is the honourable member prepared to say that he supports detailed investigation of the affairs of companies by taxation officers- he says that is good practice and he supports it- yet he is not prepared to have a similar and confidential investigation by officers of the Pricing Bureau of the Department of Health which has to disperse the public money that the Taxation Office collects? Why is it all right to trust the taxation officers with confidential information in taking tax money off the companies when it is not all right to trust officers of the Department of Health who are going to give tax money back to the companies?

Mr Lloyd:

– They have nothing to do with the pricing.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– They are the pricing officers. They belong to the Pricing Bureau of the Department of Health. I think the confidentiality issue is another red herring. The honourable member for Murray then said that there is no independent arbitrator. I do not know how independent he wants these things to be. I would have thought that conscientious, dedicated and long-serving officers as these men are- they are senior officers- would have been indepenedent to the extent that at least they are entrusted with negotiating for the Government as buyer with independent firms as sellers. Although they do pay for more than 80 per cent of the prescriptions written in this country, that is not a monopoly. There is still an open market for drug firms whose items are not listed as pharmaceutical benefits and which doctors, dentists and whoever else prescribes drugs can prescribe. They do not have to prescribe even the drugs listed as pharmaceutical benefits. They are not bound legally to prescribe them as pharmaceutical benefits. They can be prescribed outside the Government subsidy scheme and paid for by the patient.

Mr Hodges:

– That is not practical. Be frank about it.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Of course it is not practical. That is why we have a pharmaceutical benefits scheme and that is why it is essential that the people responsible for dispensing public money have accountability.

Mr Hodges:

– Why are you making that point?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I am making the point because there is an independent arbitrator available for the drugs that are outside the pharmaceutical benefit schemes the drugs which we will delist if ever we delist any. I do not think it has ever happened. Those drugs do have an independent arbitrator available in the Prices Justification Tribunal. But there is no consistency in the Opposition on this matter. The honourable member who has just interjected said that the Prices Justification Tribunal should be abolished, it is a waste and it has caused a lot of misery. The honourable member who preceded him in the debate is asking for an independent arbitrator. Which does the Opposition want? It cannot have it both ways.

Mr Lloyd:

– We want one the same as the Medical Fees Tribunal.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The Prices Justification Tribunal is as independent as the Medical Fees Tribunal.

Mr Lloyd:

– You have already said that the Prices Justification Tribunal is not used in prescription drug areas.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

-No, I am saying that it is used in other areas for drugs that are not listed.

Mr Lloyd:

– You have just admitted that you are illogical because the Prices Justification Tribunal is not at issue in prescription drugs.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– It is not at issue if they are listed as pharmaceutical benefits and the price being negotiated is their price as pharmaceutical benefits. It is relevant for all the drugs that are not listed as pharaceutical benefits.

Mr Lloyd:

-We are not talking about them.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I am talking about those.

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

-I suggest that the Minister be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The position is that I believe that the members of the Department entrusted with negotiating these prices are the appropriate people to do it just as the Prices Justification Tribunal is the appropriate body to adjudicate on pharmaceutical substances and preparations which are not listed as pharmaceutical benefits. I cannot see that one can be any more independent, any more reliable, or any more just than the other. If that is really what the honourable gentleman opposite wanted, why did he not move his amendment in terms that would have provided that where there is a dispute the matter be referred to the Prices Justification Tribunal? I submit that he did not do so not because he really wants another avenue of appeal, another arbitrator who is more independent, but because he wants to stop the Bill.

I think the last speaker on the Opposition side was the man who honestly gave the intention of the Opposition when he said that meddling fingers being put into industry is the first step to nationalising and on that basis the Opposition opposes the Bill. I think that was the most honest comment that any member of the Opposition made. It is not the first step to nationalising; the first step to nationalising was taken with the establishment of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. That was a good step; it was never reversed in 23 years by our opponents.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 56

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr Everingham) read a third time.

page 433

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May 1975 on motion by Mr Morrison:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-This Bill seeks to amend the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement. It has been hailed in quarters, which I may describe without offence as Australian Labor Party quarters, as representing something in the nature of a coup for the Party and for the Government. I will deal with that assertion later. It may be useful to remind ourselves that the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement has a fascinating history. Before I turn to that history and to the amendments as such, may I presume to remind the House that the Agreement stems from the obligations which this country has under the ANZUS Treaty. The schedule to the original Agreement states:

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia . . .

The Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) will notice that the term ‘Commonwealth of Australia ‘is used. The schedule continues: (in this Agreement called ‘the Australian Government’) and the Government of the United States of America (in this Agreement called ‘the United States Government’),

Recalling the Security Treaty which was concluded at San Francisco between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America on the first day of September 1951 . . .

It goes on to state various objectives, and continues:

Noting, in particular Article II of that Treaty which provides that the parties thereto will separately and jointly maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Before the articles commence the recital concludes ‘Have agreed as follows’. Then follows the various articles. We do well to remind ourselves that when that Agreement was introduced it was bitterly opposed by the Labor Party. If the Labor Party had had its way that Agreement would not have been brought into law in this country. That was in 1963. We can recall, I suppose with a sense of fascination, spectacular photographs taken outside one of the taverns of

Canberra showing the then Leader of the Opposition, whose memory I revere but whose politics I found myself in singular conflict with, and the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is now the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The whole attitude of the Labor Party in 1963 was one of unfeigned opposition to the establishment of the North West Cape base. That is the starting point.

Various asseverations were made by members of the then Opposition- members of the Labor Party- to the effect that when the Party became the government the base would be shut down. I will deal later with the present policy on that matter. To give some idea of the attitudes of the day- to recall what were the attitudes in 1963- may I presume to remind the House that one honourable member of the Australian Labor Party said of the communications station:

The radio station to be established will be for war purposes and not for the purposes of peace.

That was his view. I found myself, of course, in disagreement with it.

Mr Young:

– What is the base for?

Mr KILLEN:

– I will come to that later. A newspaper which was the official journal of the Soviet Armed Forces- the Red Star-spoke of the base in similar terms. It stated:

The building of the base, which is close to the area in which the national liberation movement of the people is being intensified, is a particular danger for the countries of South East Asia.

Those who were in the House on that occasion may recall that I invited honourable members to say which statement appeared in the Red Star and which statement was attributed to the member. There was, in short, bitter opposition to the establishment of the base. Has the attitude of the Party which now forms the Government of the country changed? The simple, short answer is no. The attitude of the Government, of the Australian Labor Party, is a continuing one of opposition to the base. I cite the Australian Labor Party’s platform, constitution and rules as approved by the 31st National Conference at Terrigal in 1975. It says:

Labor is opposed to the existence of foreign owned, controlled or operated bases and facilities in Australian territory, especially if such bases involve a derogation from Australian sovereignty.

I should have thought that that, as a statement, is remarkably free of ambiguity. I repeat the words Labor is opposed to the existence of foreign owned, controlled or operated bases and facilities in Australian territory.

Mr Morrison:

– That is so.

Mr KILLEN:

– Is it so?

Mr Morrison:

– It is so.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted that the Minister for Defence has said that that is the case. If the Minister commands logic and a sense of purpose he will agree that far from seeking to amend the Agreement the Government would be seeking to rescind it.

Mr Morrison:

– What about the joint control?

Mr KILLEN:

– I will come to the matter of joint control later. I suspect that what I say will be somewhat to the discomfort of my honourable friend because, far from seeking to give joint control, the amendment does absolutely nothing of the sort. There are to be 3 amendments to the agreement. Before I deal with them I remind the House that as recently as 1973 the Prime Minister described the communications base at the North West Cape as- mark the description- obnoxious. Indeed, many of his followers have repeated virtually the same sentiment. If something is obnoxious I should have thought that it would have been highly proper, depending upon one’s assessment that that is the case, to seek to do something about it. So some time ago the Minister’s predecessor was sent to the United States of America to renegotiate the agreement. He went with a great fanfare and with sustained applause from the country. He returned with applause as though he had achieved something of great moment. His achievement is to be found in the amendments to the agreement. It is the 3 amendments to which I now turn. I will take first the third one, which seems to be quite beyond not dispute as such but contention or argument. That is the amendment to article 14 which provides that costs incurred directly by the Australian Government on behalf of its armed forces shall, in short, be met. The only amendment to article 14 is the insertion of those words. So there can be no argument that that confers any form of control over the base. That provision deals with amendments concerning costs and costs only.

The principal amendment is to article 1, which reads as follows:

In accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, the United States Government may establish, maintain and operate a Naval Communication Station (in this Agreement called the ‘Station’) at North West Cape in the State of Western Australia.

The amendment being made to that article and which this Bill seeks to bring into municipal law is to the following effect:

The Station shall be operated by the armed forces of the 2 Governments as a joint facility.

Precisely nothing is said there about control of the facility. The amendment simply states that the station shall be operated as a joint facility. The present Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) said in his second reading speech on 26 May:

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 simple fact of life is that no extension of control over the base is provided for. The right of the United States Government to have access to the national room- in short, the right of the United States Government to have access to the highly classified messages which are sent- has not been altered one iota. These 3 amendments represent nothing short of a form of political bromide for the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. The Government is taking the view that the facility will be jointly controlled when it wil be nothing of the sort. The national room of the United States at the base remains one of exclusive occupancy.

Mr Young:

– Are you opposed to that?

Mr KILLEN:

-No. Unlike the honourable gentleman from Port Adelaide who interjects, I favour vigorously the establishment.

Mr Young:

– Exclusive control?

Mr KILLEN:

– If the honourable gentleman’s Party had its way and if it were consistent with its policy it would shut the base down entirely. That is what those words mean.

Mr Young:

– That would not be a bad idea.

Mr KILLEN:

– Not a bad idea, says my honourable friend from Port Adelaide.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They do not have the character to carry it out.

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes, exactly. As the honourable member for Lilley suggests, why does the Government not have the courage to declare its policy? Why does it seek to amend the Agreement? Why not seek to rescind it? Both the Liberal and the National Country parties take the view that the base is of prime importance to the integrity and to the safety of this country. We have a responsibility under the ANZUS agreement and that responsibility will be respected immaculately by the Opposition parties, more particularly if we have the opportunity to respect them as parties in government. So I say to the Minister that if he takes the view that he has sedated the more robust and rumbustious elements of his Party by amending the Agreement in these terms, all I can say is that the capacity of those members to understand is even more limited than I have hitherto suspected. This does not alter the control of the base at all. The authority for that is not merely a simple reading of the language concerned but the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who acknowledges the existence of national occupancy- exclusive occupancy- of the national room.

I sum up simply by saying this: The base is of vital importance to this country. It was established pursuant to the ANZUS Agreement. The ANZUS Agreement is of the utmost importance to this country. Unlike other agreements it is not possible for any nation to get specific performance of an alliance, of a treaty arrangement of this kind. The only thing that one can cash in the ultimate is goodwill. I am bound to say, looking at the record of the Australian Labor Party in terms of cultivating goodwill with the United States of America- not in terms of civility but in terms of mutual respect- that it is an appalling record. Insult after insult has been handed out by Ministers in a Labor government. There has been no attempt to be reasonable or to be rational. As far as the Opposition Parties are concerned, we do not make the slightest apology in acknowledging the importance of the ANZUS Agreement to this country and we do not offer the slightest apology in acknowledging the fact that pursuant to that Agreement stem responsibilities. If one does not have responsibilities under an agreement, the agreement is worthless. If one is not prepared to respond to responsibilities there is no point in entering into an agreement. It is a matter of public record that the Labor Party has committed itself to the policy attitude that all bases in Australia should be shut down. A former President of the Australian Labor Party, the honourable member for Port Adelaide -

Mr Young:

– Secretary.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am sorry, Secretary. We are all entitled to a minor degree of error, although the honourable gentleman takes the view that of course he is cloaked with infallibility.

Mr Young:

– One is paid; one is not.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am sure that the honourable member was paid handsomely, but judged by our measure probably too extravagantly. Labor is opposed to the existence of foreign owned, controlled or operated bases or facilities in Australia. The amendment put forward by the Labor Party is a simple illustration of the fact that here is a party that has lost the capacity and the courage to follow publicly what it declares by way of policy statements. Here was a splendid opportunity, if the Labor Party were consistent and really believed in what it was declaring, to say: ‘We will seek to rescind the agreement’. But instead of that we have this craven attitude seeking to quieten down the more rowdy elements within the Party.

Mr Cross:

– Where are they?

Mr KILLEN:

-Regrettably, I think they are outside probably indulging in prayer, hoping that that will extricate them from the present political distress that presses upon the honourable gentleman’s Party. The Opposition does not raise any objection to the Bill as such but it does point to the fact that the amendments do not in any way at all alter the essential character of the agreement and any assertion to the contrary is not merely false; it is a sheer pretence.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cross) adjourned.

page 436

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have to present pursuant to statute the report and financial statement of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1974-75, together with the Auditor-General’s report thereon.

page 436

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-It is very interesting to follow the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in the debate on the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement Bill 1 975 which we have before us. Last night he was dealing with a Bill in which the test of loyalty was the association with the Commonwealth. Today we are dealing with a Bill in which the test of loyalty is the continuation of the defence association with the United States. The honourable member acted in the role of an agent provocateur. Although he said that the Opposition would not oppose the Bill, he was obviously intent on provoking difficulties for the Government by trying to persuade some supporters of the Government to accept the view that the Bill before the Parliament was not in accordance with Australian Labor Party policy. Although he was paying lip service to the ANZUS Treaty, he was trying to destroy that treaty. He was acting to provoke bad relations and ill-will between Australia and the United States. I do not think that any of these roles should commend themselves to the honourable member.

He dealt with the Labor Party policy, and he said that at the time when this agreement was first negotiated in 1963 members of the Labor Party said that the base would be shut down. I was in the Parliament at that time, and I well recall the then Leader of the Opposition, the former right honourable member for Melbourne, the late Arthur Calwell, making it quite clear that in the event of a Labor Party government being returned this agreement would be renegotiated. If there is one thing that stands out above everything else, it is that this is a responsible Government. We do not repudiate agreements made by our predecessors. It would not be in Australia’s interest that we should do so. It would not be in accordance with the Labor Party platform or with the importance which the Labor Party places on the ANZUS Treaty that we should do so. The then Leader of the Opposition, the late Arthur Calwell, and the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made it quite clear in policy speeches and on other occasions that the agreement would be renegotiated to conform with the Labor Party platform, and of course that is what has happened. Perhaps I should read those parts of the Labor Party platform. It reads:

The Labor Party seeks close and continuing co-operation with the people of the United States and New Zealand to make the ANZUS Treaty an instrument for justice and peace and political, social and economic advancement in the Pacific area.

I think one should say that the Labor Party has always been a strong supporter of the ANZUS Treaty. Although we would all pay a tribute to the work of Sir Percy Spender in negotiating the ANZUS Treaty in 195 1, it was the former Labor Government through Dr Evatt, the then honourable member for Barton and Minister for External Affairs, who tried in the post-war years to persuade the United States to enter into a Pacific pact. The record is quite clear. It was the Labor Party’s intention that such a pact should be brought about. The then Minister for External Affairs worked very hard, but in those immediate post-war years when the United States was preoccupied with events in Europe- of course they loomed very seriously in those days- the climate was not right. In the circumstances of the Japanese peace treaty, pacts were entered into between the United States and the Philippinesthe so-called PHILUS Pact-and between the United States, Australia and New Zealand- the ANZUS Pact. So the climate became right.

I know that Sir Robert Menzies in his book Afternoon Light said that he took great pride in the fact that he was the Leader of the Government which negotiated the ANZUS Treaty. When that Treaty came before this Parliament it was supported by the Australian Labor Party. I do not recall, in my time in the Labor Party since 1946 and in this House since 1961, that any responsible leader of the Labor Party has attacked the ANZUS Treaty. It is extremely valuable to us in Australia not only because of the fact that through the due constitutional process the United States would come to our aid or we would go to its aid in the event of an attack on our territory, or on our sea vessels, or on our commercial aircraft, or on our other aircraft for that matter, but also because of the intimate association with the United States which this Treaty facilitates. It is also valuable because of the regular consultations that take place and the frank exchange of views on a basis of confidentiality. This indicates what the ANZUS Treaty has meant to Australia in terms of our access to American weapons of war, in terms of American intelligence and the technology that has become available to us through the presence of American installations on our soil, and in terms of the interchange of information which takes place not only between serving defence personnel, but between defence scientists and the like. So I would hope that nothing that anybody in this House does tonight does any damage to the continuation of the ANZUS Treaty which is vital as far as the people of Australia are concerned. It is against that background that this Bill comes before the Parliament.

I think that all members of this Parliament and certainly members of the Government should express their appreciation for the work of Mr Marshall Green, the former United States Ambassador to Australia. I would not disagree that when he was appointed as Ambassador to Australia, the position between Australia and the United States was a fairly sensitive one as far as foreign affairs were concerned. I think we would all agree that Mr Marshall Green worked in the interests of his own country and ours to bring about a better understanding of the position of the then newly elected Australian Government. We owe him a great debt. I think we ought to state publicly the good work that he did not only for his country but for ours.

So it was that our Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence went to the United States to discuss the operation of the United States Naval Communications Station. This agreement was entered into in 1963 and it had 25 years to run. Commensurate with the fact that the United States regarded the station as vital to its communications with its naval vessels in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere, the agreement which is enshrined in this Bill takes the situation of that station as far as it could be taken by negotiation to meet the requirements of the Labor Party platform.

I think it is fair to say that the presence of any installation on our soil to some extent impairs our sovereignty. Some people could take an extreme point of view and say: ‘Well, away with all these installations’. We would live in a fairly lonely world if that were done. It is probably true to say that the agreement will not meet the wishes of all the people. Certainly it will not meet the wishes of those who might wish to see these installations removed. But there is one thing that is certainly true: This Bill provides that there will be no alteration until 1988 in the terms of the agreement relating to the United States Naval Communications Station at North West Cape which is absolutely vital to the continued association of Australia and the United States within the ANZUS Treaty. I, together with other members and the former member for Bass and former Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, was a member of the Labor Party’s Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence when these matters were reported to the Party. There was unanimous agreement that the arrangement which increased Australia’s control over that radio station was a very satisfactory one.

Honourable members will recall the second reading speech of the then Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) when he introduced this Bill. It referred to the fact that increased numbers of personnel had taken up duty at the station. The Minister said:

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.

The new agreement makes this centre a joint naval communications centre in a way which did not apply in the past. I think it is a very sound piece of legislation. It certainly is very much in the interests of Australia. I hope fervently that in this debate honourable members do not try to exacerbate differences about this station in the Australian community. There are divergences on matters like this just as there are divergences on matters without a defence significance. There are divergences about the proposal to set up an Omega station in Australia for navigational purposes. It is important that these matters be discussed intelligently and without rancour in this Parliament and in the community. Discussions on differences that may have existed in the Labor Party have taken place and members, probably almost without exception, are satisfied with the arrangement that has been brought down.

I commend this Bill to the House. I believe that the naval communications station, overtaken in some ways as it has been by more recent developments in communications, still has a useful role to play in the future. It is a vehicle of communication not only with the vessels of the United States of America but also with vessels of the Royal Australian Navy. The presence of Australian Service personnel at North West Cape in addition to the presence of Australian civilians working in the station make it a joint effort in a way which did not apply under the agreement of the previous Government. I think I should say about the agreement entered into by the previous Government that it paid scant regard for Australian sovereignty. The debate that took place back in 1963 greatly neglected some of those issues. I thought that the previous Government sold out too cheaply at that time in the sense that it was not prepared to take into account Australian sovereignty. I think that the Bill before us now does that as well as it may be done at the present time. All of us on the Government side of the chamber look forward to a continued happy association with the United States within the framework of the defence treaty, particularly the ANZUS Treaty which is such an important part of the Labor Party platform.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-The remarks of supporters of the Government participating in this debate in both the Senate and apparently in this House make interesting reading. There are few honourable members on this side of the House who do not hold the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) in deep respect and high regard. I think it fair to say, if I might use ideological banter, that he is a member of the moderate section of the Labor Party, if not a shade to the right of that. In the Senate little was heard about this Bill from the left of the Labor Party. From looking at the list of speakers in this House there is not one other member of the Labor Party listed to speak. The honourable member for Brisbane has filled in and has put the viewpoint of the respectable right. The wayward left are not to be heard.

However, with the greatest respect to the honourable member for Brisbane I want, by way of introduction, to take up certain points. There are only a few minutes left before the sitting will be suspended so I will go into the detail of my speech on resumption. The honourable member for Brisbane said, first of all, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would not have repudiated this agreement. Nevertheless the reality is that in March 1973 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) specifically described the earlier agreement that we are debating today as obnoxious. In March 1973 this headline appeared in the Melbourne Sun-Pictorial:

Base pact obnoxious- Whitlam.

The article beneath it stated:

The North- West Cape Base agreement with the United States was obnoxious, the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, said yesterday. He said the Defence Minister, Mr Barnard, would renegotiate the agreement with the U.S. in a few months.

No self-respecting government would have entered into the agreement in the first place, Mr Whitlam told a Melbourne Press Club luncheon.

That is a fine way to continue building up that reservoir of goodwill that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) so aptly referred to when discussing what was necessary for an alliance to be properly effective. Secondly, the honourable member for Brisbane said that ANZUS is extremely valuable. He said that no leader, or respectable leader- responsible leader is what I think he said- of the Australian Labor Party has ever suggested to the contrary. If we hold to the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, I do not know how we can describe the position of Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party lately removed from the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). The reality is that the honourable member for Lalor is chairman of a body that is actively seeking nonalignment for this country. The reality is that those who follow the foreign policies espoused by the honourable member for Lalor are those who wish to see the alliance between the United States of America and Australia torn asunder.

Mr Killen:

– He got 33 votes too.

Mr PEACOCK:

-He got 33 votes. One would assume that under normal circumstances that would be a respectable tally even in the ranks of the oft-changing Labor Party. Those who follow that cause work assiduously for non-alignment as the prime aspect of Australia’s foreign policy. Yet those members of the Left will not be heard on the air waves of Australia today.

Thirdly, the honourable member for Brisbane said that in reality the ANZUS Treaty is vital to Australia. Of course, we agree. If it is so vital, therefore, why did the Prime Minister say what he did on 3 April 1974 in reply to the former Leader of the Opposition? He said:

The Australian Government takes the attitude that there should not be foreign military bases, stations, installations in Australia.

It is true that he went on to say:

We honour agreements covering existing stations.

But then he went on to say:

We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of those existing ones. The agreements stand, but there will not be extensions or proliferations.

What sort of attitude is it, if security is any form of concept to be taken into account in defence policy or foreign policy, to determine in early 1974 that no matter what the circumstances in 1985, when the agreement supposedly comes to and end, the agreement will not be extended?

Mr Morrison:

– Is expires in 1988.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am sorry, it is 1988. 1 suppose one would have to be among the ranks of the most optimistic in Australia to assume that honourable gentlemen opposite will be in government at that time, but they are speaking on behalf of the Australian people at this moment and the assumption is made that an agreement already existing can be curtailed. I would have thought the prudent course of action by any person, irrespective of ideology, would have been to assume that the agreement should run to its date of destination, 1988, and to assess the circumstances then- the requirement for security, the requirements for communication. That is the very least.

I have already referred in passing to the concluding remarks of the honourable member for Moreton in opening the debate for the Opposition when he referred to the question of goodwill and at the same time to the reality that there have been frequent occasions upon which the goodwill existent between the United States and Australia has been either jeopardised or exacerbated. The fact is that it does not matter how many agreements one may have with another country. The ANZUS agreement is only one of over 100 agreements existing between Australian and the United States. It is unquestionably the most important, but it is only one of more than 100 agreements. What the honourable gentleman said was quite correct. The value of any alliance is ultimately dependent on the reservoir of goodwill that exists between the member states to that alliance. The insults, the denigration, the constant calling into question of the value of that alliance, must have jeopardised that reservoir of goodwill to a substantial extent.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

MrPEACOCKContinuing the debate on the United States Naval Communications Station Agreement Bill, it will be recalled that I was mentioning the matters raised by the honourable member for Brisbane prior to the suspension of the sitting and in particular those matters that the honourable member for Moreton as our Shadow

Minister for Defence concluded on, namely, that what really counts in relations between nations is the reservoir of goodwill that exists, not the formal documents alone. I said that there are more than 100 agreements between the United States and ourselves and that of paramount importance amongst those is the ANZUS Agreement. I mentioned that what the honourable member for Moreton had said was quite correct. If that reservoir of goodwill is jeopardised or depleted, those formal words are not of the same impact and are not of the same importance. They cannot be called upon with the same degree of surety at a given moment of time. That reservoir has to be great and continuing.

May I say here on a question of foreign policy, that this points to an essence of foreign policy that is often overlooked. It is not necessarily relations between governments that is important, but the relationship between the peoples of the countries concerned is of the utmost importance. How would we have felt if we were reading day after day of attacks being made on our government by a neighbouring country such as were made on the Government of the United States time and again by this Government? I just mention as an aside my pleasure in seeing the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) at the table. I remarked earlier that the left had been deliberately quiet on this matter.

Mr Cross:

– Shame.

Mr PEACOCK:

– It is a shame. I am glad to see the Minister for the Capital Territory, a man for whom I have the greatest respect in his dealings with Aborigines. So great was his success that he was moved to the Capital Territory portfolio and is now going to speak on a foreign affairs matter. He is a distinguished militarist, a distinguished soldier of the Second World War and we will be interested to know what he has to say on our United States Naval Communications Station Agreement. He is the first representative of the genuine left in the Parliament who has been permitted to speak on this matter. We look forward to it with great interest.

In retrospect there is another matter that ought to be mentioned before I get on with the 3 amendments to the Agreement. It will be recalled that in 1961 the Liberal-Country Party Government was returned, and properly so, but with a very narrow majority. Also as an aside I mention that on that occasion as a student I stood against the now honourable member for Lalor who was then the member for Yarra. I remember carving into his vote to a substantial extent.

Mr Cross:

-In 1961?

Mr PEACOCK:

-In 1 96 1 . 1 was still a student.

Mr James:

– With your wife Susan campaigning.

Mr PEACOCK:

– She campaigned for me in butchers shops and in the street, so much so that I will produce the Press cuttings which reveal that the present honourable member for Lalor went to the Melbourne Herald and complained about her campaigning. That was reported and was publicised.

Mr Killen:

– I remember 1961 too.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The honourable member for Moreton and I were on a campaign together. However, in 1963, our majority on that previous occasion having been narrowed to an effective majority of one, we went to the polls. But shortly before going to the polls, an historic photograph was taken. That photograph revealed the then Leader of the Oppostion, the late Rt. Hon. Arthur Calwell, and the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), waiting outside the Kingston Hotel for their instructions from the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party on what their reaction ought to be to the establishment of the North West Cape. We know what the reaction was. We know what the decision was. They were told by the then faceless men to question the establishment of the base- the base to which the present Prime Minister only 2 years ago referred as being obnoxious. That throws back to the vote of the Federal Conference in 1963, when he was waiting for his instructions.

How much has this obnoxious Agreement been changed? How much has the so-called independent and influential foreign policy of the Labor Government changed this allegedly obnoxious Agreement? This Bill provides for 3 amendments to the Agreement. Are they gigantic or simple? The conclusion can only be the latter. The first amendment is to Article 1 of the Agreement. It provides that the base will be operated jointly. Secondly, the amendment to Article 2 limits United States control to the exclusive occupation of a national room. Those who have visited North West Cape have known for years that the only area that even the general public could not visit was that particular room, yet this is designated in the so-called amendments. The third amendment to this obnoxious Agreement, in the words of another, is to Article 14. It limits the Australian financial commitment to the cost associated with the location of elements of the Royal Australian Navy at the station. The substance of this Agreement is hardly altered at all. The honourable member for Moreton made that point. We made that point time and time again when the Agreement was renegotiated by the former Minister for Defence and Ambassadordesignate.

The reality is that when the North West Cape Agreement was first formulated we welcomed it. The North West Cape base relays messages to submarines, surface ships and other bases. It initiates no commands, but it does relay commands. The station is a vital component of the United States’ defence communications and also of Australia’s communications. After all, Australia uses the North West Cape base for communication with its own submarines. At present, as I understand it, 25 per cent of the station’s time is devoted to Australian naval needs. Mr Barnard, the then Minister for Defence, and the United States Secretary of Defence, Mr Schlesinger, saw the status of the station as a bilateral arrangement in the framework of the ANZUS Treatywords that must have been written for Mr Barnard by members of the Opposition Partiesfundamental to the ANZUS alliance, fundamental to the ANZUS Treaty and a part of the bilateral arrangement between 2 countries which share a common approach to the world’s problems today as stronger members of the Western industrialised democracies. The United States has been assured, evidently, by the Labor Government and by the Prime Minister that the Labor Government will honour this Agreement.

I referred earlier, and I must do so again more than 2 hours later, to what the Prime Minister had said at one stage about that Agreement- not just the reference to it as being obnoxious in former terms, but the fact that he had said:

We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of the existing agreements. The Agreement stands but there will not be any extensions or proliferations.

I will not develop the point any further than I did earlier, other than to say that to say in 1975 that irrespective of the circumstances a Labor Government will not renegotiate an agreement or that it will not extend it irrespective of the circumstances existent in 1988 is crass stupidity, to put it at its mildest. Irrespective of the security situation, irrespective of the arrangements into which we have entered, irrespective of the threats that may exist at that time, irrespective of the global problems facing the world, the Labor Party says 13 years before the curtailment or cessation of an agreement that under no circumstances will it extend it. What sort of delinquent action is that? It is a response to ideological motivation rather than a realistic assessment of foreign policy.

The importance of the North West Cape for Australia is that it is- we will state it frankly and we will not run away from it- a cornerstone of Australia’s security. It rests on the ANZUS alliance, as has been recognised by the Prime Minister. On occasions we have even had rhetoric from the Prime Minister. For example, in January 1973 he said that Labor had a mandate and a duty to maintain the American alliance. The man must be a human hiccup or some other form of arrangement who goes to and fro from time to time, if he can say that on the one hand and yet on the other hand describe it as obnoxious. Maybe he is simply a humanised form of the well known yo-yo.

Mr Cohen:

– I love you when you are angry.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Our friend interjects with a policy of love as the fundamental principle of foreign affairs. It befits him well. The Agreement serves to keep a super power, that to which we are allied, in the area until such time as detente is achieved. I stress now the importance of Diego Garcia in this context. Let us look at the Labor Party’s platform and policies. We know that certain segments of the Labor Party are opposed to alignment. They are led particularly by the honourable member for Lalor, and I think maybe even the Minister for the Captal Territory may proffer a viewpoint that a non-aligned foreign policy is in Australia ‘s interests. Certainly the honourable member for Lalor does. Secondly the Australian Labor Party says that we should have a nuclear free zone in the Indian Ocean.

Mr James:

– We are not alone in that.

Mr PEACOCK:

-But is not the Government allowing establishments to take place very slowly but surely- the critical words are ‘very slowly’south of Perth? Is not the Government permitting the naval base to develop there? Is that not inconsistence? If the Government alleges that it believes in an American alliance- it says it does but it does little to prove it- and if it then opposes the expansion of a logistic support base at Diego Garcia, it is, in racing parlance, trying to ride 2 horses in different directions at the one time, and it cannot be done. Why does the Government not face its hypocrisy?

We have supported the establishment and the expansion of Diego Garcia, and now the United States Senate and Congress have supported the same viewpoint. That establishment will be there not merely as a balance to Soviet expansion in the Indian Ocean; but reality dictates that if the Azores are closed it will also provide the necessary backdoor entrance to the Middle East. If the

Government does not overlook that latter factor, it would prefer to do so because its specious doctrine of even-handedness as a policy in the Middle East is no policy at all.

The amendments leave the Agreement on the North West Cape substantially the same. They are in reality an endorsement of the policies of the Liberal and Country Parties when in government. It is another example of the hypocrisy and the deceit of the Labor Party in government and its lack of purpose in stating the principles of foreign policy honestly to the Australian people. We support the BDI because it mirrors our intent.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– The transportation of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) from a place on the right of the Speaker to the left of the Speaker does not seem to have moved him any closer to 1975. He talks in the cliches of the past 15 or 20 years. He talks about a reservoir of good will to our friends in the world, but for some mysterious reason according to him our friends of the world include a small proportion only of the countries of the world. We hold a totally different view of Australia’s relationships with the other countries on this globe. We believe that we have to establish good working relationships with all governments and all peoples, regardless of their politics. We do not like the politics of many of them. However, we recognise the fact that the world is made up of a large number of independent units and nations and that every one of them has its place in the new world of the 1970s. But it is not the world of the past in which the ANZUS Treaty was written. Some of its principles still appertain, of course, because there are nations with whom we have such a close affinity that it is absolutely essential that we retain that affinity. We can always expect them to be friendly towards us in times of peril or need, although times of peril and need seem to be occurring less often in this decade than they did in the past. Unfortunately our friends opposite always like to live as though the peril were just around the corner.

Honourable members will remember the leaflets that the Liberal Party put out during the 1966 election asking where we were going to stop the downward thrust of communism. The honourable member for Kooyong is still thinking in those old cliches here tonight. The Australian Government does not attack the United States Government. It reserves its right to have opinions about the policies of other nations. It reserves its right to express opinions about other nations which abut our own. Opposition members talk as though they might act as a partner with the United States of America, and of course they can not. They prefer not to be just the junior partner, but more often a satellite. The North West Cape communications station is a direct product of the previous Government’s acting as a satellite in foreign affairs- not acting as innovators or being self-reliant on independent. The Australian Labor Party has always held a very strong view about foreign bases and facilities. The party’s platform says:

Labor is opposed to the existence of foreign-owned, controlled or -operated bases and facilities in Australian territory, especially if such bases involve a derogation from Australian sovereignty.

Labor is not opposed to the use of Australian bases and facilities by Allies in war-time, or in periods of international tension involving a threat to Australia, provided that Australian authority and sovereignty are unimpaired, and provided that Australia is not involved in hostilities without Australia ‘s consent.

The tenure of these bases and facilities by other powers should not be of such a character as to exclude properly accredited access by authorised Australians charged with the duty of evaluating Australian defence policy, whether members of the Australian Parliament, defence departments or armed services.

Tonight we are discussing a relic of the previous Government, one of its worst aberrations, one of its most mischievous operations, one of the more malevolent aberrations of its foreign policy, one of the inflictions upon Australia which could well have involved us in war and destruction without any possibility of intervention on our behalf. It was the final product of the previous Government’s total deficiency in foreign policy in the 1 950s and 1 960s. My friend from Kooyong asks: Why is it obnoxious?’ It is obnoxious because if offends the very principles on which the Labor Party has always approached its duties to the nation and its relationships with the rest of the world. Australian sovereignty and authority over any part of our territory must not be impaired. This agreement as originally written abdicated our responsibilities and our sovereignty.

I must address myself to one or two other points made by the honourable member for Kooyong. The first is in relation to Diego Garcia. This is another relic of the past. It is a flow-on from previous relationships that developed between the United States of America and Russia and their attitude to China. I believe, as most of the nations around the Indian Ocean believe, that this base is irrelevant today. It adds nothing to the security of the area to establish bases throughout the Indian Ocean. We ought to attempt to persuade the leaders of both nations involved- the Americans and the Russians- to retire gracefully to nearer their own homelands. The honourable member asked whether the

Government is in favour of alignment. The Government is not neutral but is chooses its own friends and it chooses the time and place for its commitments. In the modern world there is no possibility of establishing a commitment which could still be valid in 13 years time. The Government reserves its right to make commitments as the time and place warrant. So to that extent we are unaligned. We are unaligned with other people’s errors. We are aligned with other people’s needs, other people’s rights and other people’s duties. We reserve our right to be selfreliant and independent in foreign policies.

But we also honour the obligations imposed upon us by the past. We still accept the agreement which was written by our predecessors. We recognise that it is necessary for this Government to continue the agreements of the past. We have no intention to dishonour our obligations that flow from them, no matter how much we may disagree with them. I think that that is probably the message of tonight for the Australian people. At the time when this agreement was written, the Australian Labor Party was opposed to it. Many of us in the Labor Party regarded it as a fundamental abdication of our rights and our duties. It placed us in an impossible position in foreign affairs. We made no apology for our attitude then and we make no apology for our attitude now. The history of the Australian Labor Party’s attitude in foreign affairs is a history of attempting to escape from the shackles of the past and the obsessions and inhibitions of the Opposition. In the past we were always seen to be dependent on somebody. In the first 40 or 50 years of this century, it was the British. In the last 20 or 30 years, it was supposed to be the United States of America. We always rejected this role of dependence and we always will reject it. Our attitude is to be self reliant and dependent and to be ready wherever we are involved.

Mr Lusher:

– That is unrealistic.

Mr BRYANTOf course, members of the Opposition are indicating their role and attitude by their interjections. They say that this is unrealistic. Of course, they find it easier to buy goods overseas and get their foreign policies from other countries. They are totally dependent on others for their foreign policy. During the 20 years that I have been a member of this House I do not recall one sensible, independent, constructive contribution on foreign policy from any of the honourable members opposite. They were always continuing the cliches of the past. If they could get them from some text book written in America or from the speech of some American President, that is what they would do. They have had a total misunderstanding of the world situation. Of course, they say in 1975 that the threats that appeared to exist in 1945 and 1955 are still with us. When will they look at the world as it stands in 1975? This is a totally different world and they know it. They find it much more useful and much easier to try to stir the threats of fear and hysteria of the past and try to capitalise on them politically.

This communications base is a product of American policy. That would be well enough were we so totally involved in America’s commitment that we should accept not only the commitment to America but also the punishment that may flow from any strategic errors which that country perpetrated. The Americans set out to establish a global weapons system. They saw the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the threat of the 1950s and the early 1960s. Of course, subsequently they chose to see the People’s Republic of China also as a threat. I believe that history shows and with hindsight -

Mr McLeay:

– Why do you not throw them out?

Mr BRYANT:

– Honourable members would think that with hindsight even the honourable member for Boothby could understand the position. He does not need to think these things out; he can even read them for himself. I believe that with hindsight from honourable members opposite and a proper appreciation from members on this side of the House it can be seen that most of those threats which created the tensions of the 1950s and 1960s were non-existent.

I turn to the position that existed at the end of the Second World War in 1945 and the subsequent events and relationships between nations involved in the world scene. It is now a pretty firmly held view in many quarters- not of the right or of the left but of independent observers around the world- that the United States of America over-reacted to the Russian situation. So it ringed the world with bases. It ringed the world with submarines ready to fire upon both continental Russia and continental China. We allowed ourselves -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for Hume, who is attempting to interject, is out of order on 2 counts and I suggest that he cease interjecting.

Mr BRYANT:

-The honourable member for Hume knows little of the matter. He may well listen and be educated on the subject. The facts are that once we allowed this base to be established on Australian shores we became the target for any counter-action by the Russians against anything the Americans could do. We placed ourselves in a situation where we could have been involved in a war or a war-like action without any possibility of intervention on our part and without any possibility of our preventing that happening to us. Perhaps we could even be held as hostage because we would be much more expendable than the cities of America.

I make no apology tonight for repeating the spirit of the words which we uttered 10 or 12 years ago. I and the Labor movement believe that the abdication of the sovereignty over our own territory in situations such as this gets pretty close to treachery. I hold a very strong view about this. I can have no respect for the people who initiated it, or who sponsored it, or who still support it. I believe they did a great disservice to the Australian people and to Australia’s role in the world. The original agreement which was signed meant that we accepted a total involvement in any conflict between, in all probability, either Russia and America or America and China. I do not see how honourable members opposite can justify that in any way at all.

Mr Peacock:

– Will the honourable member close the base down?

Mr McLeay:

– Answer that question.

Mr BRYANT:

– I said earlier, and I repeat it for the slow learners opposite, that this Government is prepared to honour those agreements, even those the contents of which they abhor. We have no intention whatsoever of departing from our duty as the representatives of Australia in this regard. When the agreement was written 12 or 13 years ago many of us held the view that no government was entitled to allow its writ to run for so much longer than the charter which comes with an election. We are all elected for 3 years. That is a reasonable charter. Beyond that we are making hostages for the future. Of course it is unreasonable to impose a strict limit of 3 years on any agreement which the Government may make. But I think the 25 years which was involved in this agreement was quite conscienceless on the part of the Opposition. I still believe it was quite conscienceless. No government should embark on such a proposition. So we carry the agreement forward.

My friend the former honourable member for Bass negotiated with the best of goodwill and to the best of his ability with the American Government. The American Government made some concessions in relation to the position which it had originally taken. America has gone as far as it is prepared to go. Because of the terms of the agreement we are unable to alter it in any way without a breach of faith. That is the last thing we will do. Therefore tonight this Government is asserting that it will undertake to accept the agreements of the past, whether or not we agree with them. We undertake to continue them while they run. But we still reserve our right, at any opportunity, to negotiate with the other party to the agreement for a change towards a greater Australian involvement and sovereignty. So the issue here tonight is the further protection of Australia’s sovereignty and its right to control its own destiny.

I hope that never again will we have to be launched upon such a debate as this. I hope that when this agreement has run its course we will not any more embark upon such a commitment. The honourable member for Kooyong made light of or sneered at the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has said that we would neither extend it nor rewrite it.

Mr Peacock:

-He called it a bit more than that.

Mr BRYANT:

– I have the words here. In 1 988 the world may well be a different one. We can rest confident that no matter how much the world may change, no matter how different it may be, the honourable members opposite will still continue to live in the past.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The rather incredible opposition to the Bill that we have just heard from the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) leads me to suspect that he will vote against the measure. Let me explain to the people of Australia who are listening, and even to the Minister, that the product of what he said, the innuendo- the treachery assertion which is despicable for the man and the Minister and indicative of the low minded attitude of so many of those who currently and temporarily hold sway as Ministers of the Government- indicates that incompetently they have gone out and preached their philosophy and have returned to this House and denied a product of this ministerial negotiation.

Make no mistake, the ministerial negotiation is a failure if the Ministers believe what the Labor Party asserts. The Labor Party asserts, if one turns to its philosophy as promulgated by the 3 1 st National Conference at Terrigal -

Mr Young:

– Read out the Country Party’s policy on bases.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I would be very happy to do so. It would be a jolly sight more profitable than anything one would get out of the Labor Party. I am glad that the honourable member for Port

Adelaide (Mr Young) has come into the House because I think South Australia is probably almost as derelict as Tasmania. I am not too sure whether the Labor Party in Tasmania remains as one with the Federal cause. Mind you, the Labor Party is about to lose all Federal seats so one must sympathise with its present stance. Federally the Labor Party’s left wing in Tasmania is trying to control and stamp into the ground those few within the right wing of the party who survive. It was a former right wing Labor Minister from Tasmania, who thank goodness has lost his seat, who brought forward the measure we are debating tonight.

Let me come back to the philosophy of the Labor Party. It can be stated in these words: Labor is opposed to the existence of foreign owned, controlled or operated bases and facilities on Austraiian territory especially if such bases involve a derogation from Australian sovereignty’. They are brave words, but what utter nonsense it is when we look at what the Labor Party is doing tonight.

Mr Innes:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I am glad to hear the honourable member contribute his two penn’orth, but I suspect that we will have within the ranks of the Government many who, if they agree with what they have asserted, will vote against this measure tonight because they have not been able to implement in any way the product of their policy. Where does this agreement in any way contravene Australian sovereignty? I will go back and show the honourable member in a moment for I think it is necessary that we do so. Where does this agreement in any way achieve what the left seeks, that is, the complete withdrawal of the United States presence in our part of the world? This particular negotiation, as honourable members will recall, came immediately after three of the senior Ministers of the Government- mind you, some of them have since had their day- denigrated the man and the administration of the United States. There was the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who shortly afterwards became the Deputy Prime Minister; the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) the former Minister for Labor and Immigration- I am not too sure where he is now- who at that stage also made certain remarks, and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren).

Those 3 Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made very brave assertions against the United States. This agreement was the grand achievement. This was how the Labor Party demonstrated that no longer was it prepared to have the Americans on our shore. It is interesting to note that in March 1973 the present Prime Minister said that the base pact was obnoxious. He went on to say that the North West Cape base agreement with the United States was obnoxious and that the then Defence Minister (Mr Barnard) would renegotiate the agreement with the United States within a few months. Renegotiate, mind you; not just add a few words here and there. It would be a fundamental renegotiation. No self-respecting government would have entered into the agreement in the first place, Mr Whitlam told a Melbourne Press Club lunch. The Prime Minister went on to say that the Agreement gives the United States sole control over the secret radio base for 25 years. What do we have in this respect? We have a wet squib.

Let us look at the additions that we have before us. There are to be 3 amendments to the Agreement. The Bill is a Bill of 2 pages. The whole totality of the additions is 3 minimal extensions to 3 Articles of the Agreement none of which affects the continuity of Australian sovereignty. The preservation of Australian sovereignty was written into the Agreement in the first place, not by the Labor puppets of the socialist extremists from outside but during a speech which Sir Garfield Barwick delivered in this place on 9 May 1963. In it Sir Garfield asserted, in the first instance, that the first of the broad principles that each Government recognised in the course of negotiations was that the Agreement and the obligation it creates respect the sovereignty of each. So there has been no change in respect of sovereignty. That was written into the Agreement by a government of our persuasion.

The present Government- the persons opposite who are so prepared to denigrate the American presence- did not achieve the preservation of Australian sovereignty. It did not in any way change the Articles which were written into the Agreement way back in 1963. That is not to be the change to Article 1 of the Bill. The only change to Article 1 is of such significance that -oh dear me- the left wing must have been really delighted. It provides that the station shall be operated by the armed forces of the 2 governments as a joint facility. What happens? Do honourable members know where the 47 officers and men of the Royal Australian Navy are allowed to go? They are allowed access to exactly the same facilities at the North West Cape base as is any Australian or overseas tourist who goes there by a Pioneer bus. My word it was a remarkable achievement! It was really quite extraordinary!

We heard brave assertions of treachery from the buffoon who preceded me in the debate. We heard the claim that the particular obligation entered into by Australia and the United States was going to be changed so fundamentally that the joint forces of the 2 countries were going to operate in a way which was in some way going to add to Australia’s preservation of sovereignty and maintenance of the base. That is not true. The assertion and preservation of the Australian sovereignty came from the negotiations concluded by the Liberal-Country Party Government back in 1963. I think it is quite important that we remember that.

Lest those of the left wing on the other side of the chamber have any doubts about the matter let me refer to page 1223 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 9 May 1963. There they will find that the then Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General laid down in quite clear and demonstrative form the fact that we were quite determined that Austraiian sovereignty in no way would be prejudiced. The second thing that he asserted was that the control of the station should rest with the United States. Of course, the left wing has said: ‘That is diabolical. That does not agree with our Party platform’. But what changes have there been to the control exercised by the United States? Proposed article 2 has not been changed. It will remain as it is at present. It provides that ‘exclusive use and occupancy thereof will be vested in the United States Government. It talks about granting to the United States Government all necessary rights of access to such land. There is reference to exclusive use, exclusive occupancy and all necessary rights of access. What change has the former Minister for Defence secured? Absolutely none.

The third principle which each government recognised in the course of the negotiations was that when desired by either the United States or Australia there should be consultation between the 2 governments as to matters connected with the station and its use. That is a very proper provision. It is the provision by which the former honourable member for Bass was able to enter into this extension of the old agreement. There is talk of proper consultation and of the proper way in which changes might be entered into. What change has there been to that provision? Absolutely none. That provision was written into the agreement in case it was thought for some reason by a responsible government to be necessary to enter into some changes. The fourth principle which each government recognised in the course of the negotiations was that the Australian armed forces should have the use of the communication services of the station. That always has been the position. Has there been any extension of it? Of course not. That position remains. In other words, within the framework of this agreement- not changed by any discussions in this House tonight or by anything the former member for Bass has achieved, obtained simply because of that past negotiation back in 1 963- there is a continuation of the situation that the Australian armed forces may have the use of the communications service of the station. That is a very worthwhile and necessary reason for the station being there. The next principle reads:

Fifthly, that the Australian Government should not seek to make a revenue profit out of the American establishment, maintenance or operation of the station and that, where possible, it should assist to minimize the cost of the station to the American Government.

Of course that is the reason that we have the second change, that in clause 3 article 14 should be amended by the addition of the words ‘other than costs incurred directly by the Australian Government on behalf of its armed forces’. What has this great renegotiation achieved? It has achieved the bearing of the responsibility for the costs of those Australian servicemen currently in the North West Cape in accordance with the origial agreement. The Australian Government will pay for the Australian naval personnel who are there. What a remarkable achievement! Goodness me.

Mr Killen:

– That is the only thing that has happened.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As my colleague said, the only product of the demonstrably anti-American attitudes of this Government, particularly of its Left, are that the Australian Government will pay for the 47 naval officers and men who are stationed there as part of the joint service detachment. What a remarkable achievement! There will be 3 minimal extensions to the agreement. Those 3 extensions are where the left wing has either been done in the eye or the Australian people are being completely hoodwinked by the assertions that the Government has been able to achieve some remarkable extension of Australian sovereignty. Of course this is part and product of what the Government normally does. We become used to it. I shall continue to quote from Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s address back in 1963. He stated:

Sixthly, that in the establishment, operation and maintenance of the station, the maximum practicable use of Australian resources should be made.

What a fit and proper assertion that is. There is no extension by the Labor Party. Australian resources? Indeed the present Minister for Defence- we have heard little of him- and his predecessor, have been trying to deny the use of Australian resources and materials and manufacturing capacity in the re-equipment and extension of the Australian armed forces. Indeed in their manufacturing policy and economic policy they are denying the ability of the Australian people to produce the goods and the equipment which might be needed in the event of a future conflict. Pity help us if it should ever occur. The provision I just quoted was written into that original agreement. There is no change by the Labor Party. It remains as it was. The next principle reads:

Seventhly, that, without submitting to the jurisdiction of Australian courts, or compromising its sovereignty, the United States would conform to Australian law and its personnel would observe it.

There we are. We not only wrote in the preservation of Australia sovereignty, we also wrote in specifically that those who, being United States personnel, for the time being are within Australian sovereignty should be properly subject to Australian law and Australian courts. How in any way did we renege on our responsibilities to preserve Australian sovereignty? Of course we did not. The Labor Government could not find any reason to fault us. It has not changed that clause for that clause was fit and properly included in the original agreement. Indeed, the changes to the agreement, even down to the very minor amendments that have been written in by the re-negotiation of which the former Minister for Defence was so proud and of which the present Minister for the Capital Territory is so critical, are so minimal that it is laughable that the Bill comes before us at all.

Mr Killen:

– He called it treachery.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Minister for the Capital Territory called it treachery. He used hard and harsh words. I suspect he will vote against the Bill. We on this side of the House see no reason to do other than support it. The extensions that have been written into this measure are no more than an extension of the fundamental principles which we asserted in that original agreement.

Having looked specifically at those few minimal extensions and having contrasted the position of the left wing of the Labor Party and the reality of what it has achieved I turn now to look at the reality of where we are and our relations with the United States and the reality of what this agreement means. The Australian Labor Party has said a great deal that has tended to cause concern amongst the people of Australia because it is prepared to deny any threat, any fear and any circumstances within which there might be any armed attack on this continent for the next 15 years. The Government has told us of strategic assessments. It has told us that it wants a nuclear free zone. It has told us that it does not want the Americans in Diego Garcia. It has told us that it disagrees with much of American policy. In fact, what the Government has done is to put Australia in a position where, to a greater degree than ever before, we are subject to the will and direction of countries which obviously must be a threat to the future stability of the world.

Surely nobody in the Parliament will suggest that between China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics there is anything but rather unfriendly and arm’s length relations. Surely the Government recognises that one of the greatest threats to stability in the world today lies in the uncertain relationship between those 2 communist powers. Surely even the Government accepts that the product of the reopening of the Suez Canal and the equipment of the Russian bases around the Indian Ocean is that Australia stands very vulnerable and a long way from those with whom she has been associated in the past. Surely even the present Government recognises that the climate which it has created following the Guam Doctrine- for a while it was known as the Nixon Doctrine, but I suspect that today it is known again as the Guam Doctrine- is that the United. States would expect us to be capable of playing and willing and prepared to play our part in this area of the world. On the one hand the Government says that it supports ANZUS; yet on the other hand we hear a speech such as that made a moment ago by the Minister for the Capital Territorya man who for the time being is a Minister in the Government. He alleges treachery. That is one of the most serious allegations that one can make against an individual or a government. He alleges treachery simply because the present Opposition had the foresight and the responsibility to take out an insurance to bring the greatest power in the world into a position where it would be aligned with us.

I cannot express too highly my concern that the product of the Labor regime in this country is that there is no longer the certainty of that continued close and friendly relationship between the United States and Australia. Indeed, the very product of what the speaker who preceded me said is that Labor is not content to have so fragmented Australia’s relationships or so severed those relationships by all its past assertions. He seeks to go much further. In the assertions that he has made tonight, surely he has demonstrated that there is still unhappiness among the members of his Party about those agreements that still exist. He demonstrated, in what he said, that the security that lies within the context of agreements such as this is not for him. The only security he seeks is some type of continued dialogue with the people of the communist countries to our north, communist countries whose future relationship with each other, even if not with us, is uncertain, communist countries in our region whose threat each and every member of the Labor Party denies.

It is interesting to conjecture on the form that the present expression of the philosophy and policy of the Labor Party will take- disengagement and disarmament, and the complete denigration of defence arrangements which provide some type of cover against the run-down for which they have been responsible. On this side of the Parliament we support Agreement, but beyond that we support the principle behind it. We do not believe in warmongering, but we do believe in security and defence. We believe that the attitudes and principles that lie behind this Agreement are fundamental to the survival of this country, and it is despicable that the Minister or any other member of the Government of this country should perform as he did in this House tonight.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– It was not the intention of several honourable members on this side of the House to speak to this Bill tonight. Sitting here listening to the views put forward by spokesmen from the Opposition, it became crystal clear that this Bill was being used as a vehicle to turn Australia back to the debates that we have had since 1949- debates on the Petrov affair, Vietnam and foreign bases. As there is no longer reason for debates on Vietnam, South-East Asia or Indo-China we are now getting back to the bases. We have gone the full cycle. We have to take seriously the views of the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who has just concluded his remarks, and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) because they happen to be the two very distinguished visitors from Australia who were the last people to shake hands with President Thieu and Lon Nol when they were still in office. Those poor fellows, representing democracy in their own countries, got away with only $100m worth of gold between them. They were fine defenders of what the Liberal Party and the Australian National Country Party stand for. It is significant that so much attention has been paid to this debate by spokesmen opposite. Since the liberation of China they no longer can proceed with the ‘fear of Asia’ debate which had been with us since 1949. They now seek a return to the debate on bases. It becomes a test of where every individual stands, where every party stands, where every group stands. Everybody receives a tag for what they say about American bases.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who has been quoted here quite a lot, was perfectly correct: The Agreement will not be signed in future. No government, in its right mind, would again sign an agreement such as the one which was signed in 1963. The Opposition would not sign such an agreement; we would not. It is about time that members of the Opposition stood up and said so. Honourable members opposite talk about what will happen in 1988 but I point out that very few of us, travelling economy class, will be here to put up with it. Many of us will not be here to determine what decisions will be reached.

Members of the Opposition still refuse to recognise what is happening in the world, especially in our part of the world. At a time when the super powers- the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America- have nuclear arsenals that can destroy the world one hundred times over, a little rational debate about what part a country plays in its own policies about what influence it may have in its own region and about how it may be able to persuade in some small way the actions of the super powers, is extremely important. There can be no doubt from any unbiased observer’s point of view that the attitudes and the policies of the conservative parties in Australia over our relations with Asia were totally wrong. The sacrifice of 490 Australian lives in Vietnam stands condemned as a pinnacle of Liberal Party policy.

The Agreement on the North West Cape was signed in 1963 when, by stealth, we were sending military advisers into Vietnam. As it turns out, it was not the Americans who asked us to go into Vietnam; we asked the Americans to let us go into Vietnam. It is this sort of feeling and this sort of environment that existed in the mid-1960s under a Liberal-Country Party Government. It was all for home consumption. There was no world diplomacy about it. No standing up for Australia’s own rights was involved. It was merely for home consumption for political purposes each 3 years because the then Government was doing very well out of it. The attitude of the then Government was: ‘It is better to fight them up there than down here. Let us drop napalm on the Vietnamese, on the Cambodians and anybody at all as long as we are convincing the people of Australia that unless we do it they will be down here to take over this country’. Those countries happen to be liberated and the policies of those countries and the countries nearby happen to be changing very radically. One could go back over the attitudes.

It is interesting that members of the Country Party- the steerage of the coalition- get up tonight to speak. For many years members of the Country Party said: ‘Do not recognise China. Do not go near China. Just let China buy our wheat’. I go to China as frequently as I am able to do so. One trips over Australian farmers in China; one cannot move without running into bus loads of Australian farmers. They are all probably deducting their expenses from their tax. People must look at the role that we can play. We are not near Washington and we are not near London. We are part of Asia and we can have some influence on it. For years the Liberal and Country parties said that the Labor Party was wrong on Vietnam. No one has said seriously tonight that we were wrong. From now until 1988 the basis of the Opposition argument will be ‘Labor Party, you are wrong’. In 1988 the present Opposition wa run away from the issue. The Opposition will not say- no spokesman has said itthat it would sign another agreement such as this or that it would propose to sign further agreements.

Mr Peacock:

– We are not prepared to say that we would not.

Mr YOUNG:

– The honourable member for Kooyong, who took his full 20 minutes -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- The Chair has been very patient and tolerant tonight. It realises that tempers might flare in the debate, but I would ask the honourable member for Kooyong to contain himself.

Mr YOUNG:

-Much has been made of the Labor Party poliCY. When one asks spokesmen from the other side to elucidate their own policies nothing comes forward. No member of the National Country Party or the Liberal Party can stand up as I, a member of the Australian Labor Party, am doing now and hold up a copy of the policy of his political party. The Labor Party is the only party that has put forward a policy that can be taken seriously, whether it concerns bases or any other issue.

A spokesman for the National Country Party or the National Party wants to put nuclear weapons up and down the coast of Queensland. Is that the pokey of the coalition Opposition?

Will someone please tell us on this side of the House whether what that person said in Queensland at the Returned Service’s League Convention about wanting nuclear weapons up and down the coast of Queensland and around all the cities of Australia is the policy of the Liberal-Country Party Opposition? Please tell us. We are interested in what the Opposition has to say about it. It is a very interesting exercise when the Opposition is talking about restraint in the Budget because someone has worked out that it would cost quite a lot of money to carry out that policy. By the silence of the members of the Opposition I take it that that is their policy. No less a person than Mr Bjelke-Petersen told us so. He has paraded around the country like a prize bull speaking to meetings and telling us what should happen in Australia. No one on the other side refutes what he has to say about foreign affairs.

If that is the policy of the Opposition let us look at its political aspects. What does the Opposition think this sort of statement will lead to in our building of relations with the countries to the north? Firstly, I think the Opposition must have learnt its lesson that there is a vast difference between the way in which some of the countries which are called communist countries operate their governments. There is a great difference in the relationships between lots of those governments. As the last speakers have said, of course there is great friction between the People’s Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is perhaps some friction between the other countries that have been recently liberated and the People’s Republic of China and among themselves. This is an area where we can play an important role but all we will hear for the next 20 years is whether we are to be loyal to the United States alliance and whether we are to rely on ANZUS. The argument is so stale. I would not mind if it was only the older members of the Opposition who are using it, but all the younger ones use it also. One would hope that someone on the other side was learning.

The Opposition has never got used to the fact that in 1949 the people of China decided to run their own country. At that time 600 million people decided that it was no longer lit and proper to allow foreign countries to run China. Looking back, I suppose it was a decision that they were entitled to make. If Australia had to make that decision in the future and made it I suspect that some of the younger members on the other side might decide that it was a good decision. China made that decision in 1949. There is no likelihood of the Government of China being changed in the future. We will have to live with that and we will have to build relations with that country. China is a major influence in Asia.

We are at the crossroads of all those countries trying to have an influence in our area. Yet we are sitting back hearing the same old tired story. Poor old Sir Robert Menzies. Why does not the Opposition let him retire? The establishment of the base in 1963 was his policy. Vietnam was his policy. The non-recognition of China was his policy. For God’s sake, some of you go and have a look at what is going on.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

-It is quite entertaining to see that there are some members of the Left who are now prepared to speak on what is a major issue before the Australian public. That issue is no less real today than it was in 1963. The issue is: Are we prepared in time of peace to grant facilities on our own soil to a foreign nation? That is the issue that must be answered today as it had to be answered in 1963. Without any doubt, from this side of the House and from the overwhelming proportion of the Australian people, the answer will be: ‘Yes, we will provide facilities and bases. We do not regard that as as derogation from our sovereignty. On the other hand, we regard it as the way in which our sovereignty can be preserved ‘. Without a treaty such as the ANZUS Treaty, Australia would not have the assurance of national security that it now has under that treaty.

The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) spoke in terms which would not find support from more than 10 per cent of the Australian population. The great majority of that percentage would not be merely communists; they would be to the far left of the communists.

Mr Young:

– What would they be called?

Mr SNEDDEN:

-You would know better than I.

Mr Young:

– I cannot think of a name.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-You mix with them. In 1 963 we had a debate in this Parliament on the North West Cape base. Let us call it a base; it is a communications facility. That facility has a very low frequency which enables the United States military command to communicate with its naval vessels throughout portion of the world. It probably has a range of 4 000 miles to 5 000 miles. It can communicate with submarines under the surface of the sea. It is very important to understand the purpose of that facility. It is very important for us to answer the question whether we are prepared to permit that facility to continue to operate on Australian soil.

In 1963, the Executive of the then Government formulated the agreement. It did not have to bring that agreement before the Parliament as the Executive had the power to conclude the agreement and to let it run with aU the force of law. But the Executive brought to the national Parliament, to enable the national Parliament to debate the Bill the purpose of which was merely to authorise the agreement. When the Bill was before the Parliament we had a debate the Uke of which has seldom been emulated since. Every leading personality in the political sphere in the Parliament spoke. For the Opposition, Mr Calwell led and Mr Whitlam followed. For the Government, Sir Garfield Barwick led and Sir Robert Menzies, Mr Harold Holt and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) also spoke. That debate was to determine whether or not we should grant to a foreign power the right to establish a base in Australia in time of peace. Well we won the debate in terms of numbers in the Parliament because we had the numbers at that dme.

What is more important is that within 6 months an election was held. At that election in 1963 the majority of the Government increased from a mere one- my honourable and learned friend from Moreton (Mr Killen) will well remember that we had a majority of one at that time- to a substantial majority. The Government was returned with the majority because the Aus.tralian people accepted the proposition that we put before them. That debate occurred against the background of the ANZUS treaty. The questions that were asked included: Did we believe in ANZUS? Were we prepared to play our part in ANZUS? Were we relying on ANZUS as a treaty for our national security? That was the background to the debate. And if the answer to those questions was yes, then quite clearly we had to allow the United States to have this facility so that the United States could play its part not only in the ANZUS Treaty but in world security- the western defence system. That is what the issue was about.

During the course of the debate the issue came up as to whether Australia should have control of the base. The argument was quite clear. The Opposition at that time, the Labor Party, said: There is no way in which the United States can be allowed to have control of this base. When we come to office we will renegotiate the treaty to take away from the United States control of the base’. We in government at that time said: ‘We have negotiated, and control must lie with the United States. If it is to be joint control’- as was argued by the Labor Party at that time- ‘joint control would put into the hands of the people at the base representing the Australian Government the power of veto’. We were not prepared to say to the United States: ‘You can have this base only if we have the power of veto To do so would have inevitably meant that the United States would not have agreed. We would not have had the base. We would have abrogated ANZUS there and then by that action.

The Labor Party said: ‘When we come to government we will, in accordance with the Treaty, renegotiate’. The Labor Party’s purpose was to renegotiate to give joint control- in other words, to assume the power of veto. That is what the left wing of the Labor Party wanted. It will be remembered that then was coined the phrase the 36 faceless men’- the men who reached the decision while poor Arthur Calwell and poor Gough Whitlam were sitting out in the shrubs waiting for the decision.

Mr King:

– It was pretty cold then.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It was cold then and it is cold now. The whole point is that we now have before the Parliament, for reasons which I am unable to discern, a piece of legislation which the Government does not need to bring before the Parliament to alter the Agreement. The Government has altered the Agreement in a piffling way. It has done nothing whatever to fulfil its promises of what it would do when it came into government. The amendments to Articles 2, 3 and 14 merely re-assert the existing practice at the base. The only addition is to give Australia its own national room. The United States has its national room. We do not have access to the communications that go through the national room. We have not asked for it. It was not part of the negotiations by the present Government. It has set up a parallel Australian national room. Australia was always able to use the base to communicate with its own armed forces and its ships, including submarines, operating in the Indian or Pacific oceans. This amendment gives us the opportunity to reaffirm that we will look after the security of this country by means of treaties with our allies, and that we will give to our allies complete assurances that they can rely on our committed word and our willingness, at least on this side of the House, to defend Australia and to make our contributions to the western defence system.

The debate today is against a changed background- not the background of 1963 but the background of today. The background of today is one in which a threat to Australia could emerge at any time by a destabilisation of the area to the north of us. A good question to ask is: Is that area likely to be destabilised? The answer must be: We cannot foretell, but there is a constant threat that it might. The threat arises in this way: The Soviet Union and China have great enmity towards each other. Troops are constantly on the alert at their border across the Asian mainland. If one goes to Peking one will be shown shelters and be told by the Chinese that rocketry is aimed at Peking and that the shelters are to protect them from nuclear fallout. We all know that the Soviet is fearful of being overrun by China in the longer run. China, for its part, is fearful of an interdiction strike by the Soviet. But across the Asian mainland their border is destabilised. Nobody would deny that.

The new factor that enters into this situation is that the Soviet has naval forces in the Indian Ocean, with service from Vladivostok, past the east of Japan, through the Sunda Strait and into the Indian Ocean, or alternatively out from the northern ports of Russia or through the Mediterranean and around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. We all know that Soviet ship time in the Indian Ocean has been building up as a geometric progression. We now know that the Suez is open and the line of communication is thereby so much shortened. The Chinese see this and they see a threat of their being surrounded, not merely from the land border of Asia but from the south. They see also the Soviet achieving facilities, as the Soviet calls them- bases, we would call them- all around the bordering states of the Indian Ocean where their ships can be serviced.

The Chinese are fearful of being surrounded. So there is a competition for power, a competition for influence in the Indian Ocean and the South-East Asian region. That competition for influence is caused by the Soviet wanting to penetrate into African states. The Chinese have done this, the Soviet has done this down through South-East Asia and, if that competition builds up, there will be a destabilised area. Remember that the Soviet has massive sea power and airborne sea power. The Chinese have no sea power or airborne sea power but they have plenty of ground power. Therefore, if the Chinese are to match this Soviet naval presence it can do so only on the ground. If there is a competition, not only ideologically but for areas of influence, of sovereignty or suzerainty, then the whole of the area to the north will become destabilised. We should look at Australia in its geographical context in the event of that area becoming destabilised. We have to the north of us a destabilised area of thousands of miles extending across the Pacific to the United States, and across Asia, Asia Minor and Europe to Western Europe. We cannot look there for support. If we are to look anywhere for support we must look to the ANZUS treaty.

In those circumstances would anybody in this chamber be prepared to deny the United States the use of communication facilities at North West Cape? Members of the Labor Party will say: We are not denying them the use; we are letting them have it. But they also say: We regret that the agreement was ever entered into; given the opportunity we would end it and we will end it as soon as we can. Would they abrogate the agreement? Under the terms of the agreement they can renegotiate it at any time. The state of mond exposed by Labor speakers tonight is that they want to abrogate the agreement and they would do so if they thought they could do so honourably. They want it both ways- honourably and yet not abrogated. They cannot have it both ways. If they mean what they say then they ought to say in the fulsomeness of the term: This agreement is there, we stand by it, it is vital to us and we want it to be maintained. But they dare not do that because of the outbursts of members like Mr Bryant, the Minister for the Capital Territory, and Mr Young, the honourable member for Port Adelaide and formerly the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party.

Instead members of the Government talk about a nuclear free zone, but what will that do? Does anybody imagine that the Soviet ships unload their nuclear weapons before they sail into the Indian Ocean? If we want a United States presence in the Indian Ocean as a balancing force to the competition between the Soviet and China then we must encourage the United States naval and air power into the Indian Ocean. Who would say that before they sailed into the Indian Ocean they must likewise jettison their nuclear weapons? It is a fairy tale. A nuclear free zone would operate only to the great disadvantage of Australia.

What of the other proposal that the Indian Ocean should be a zone of peace? How can it be a zone of peace when the 2 contestant nations build facilities all over the states- the littoral states as they are called- bordering the Indian Ocean? How can members of the Labor Party say that they want the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace when they themselves, by the continuance of this agreement, are prepared to give a base to the United States literally on the Indian Ocean coast? They deny themselves. They make nonsense of their own argument. Fortunately the

Australian peole would not accept the argument for to accept it would be to prejudice very seriously the defence capacity of this country in alliance with a great ally, the United States.

The purposes of the Government’s amendments are merely to try and placate the left, to leave the left with some sense that they have partly won. But there is no room for that. We must face up to the issue; the left must face up to the issue and the right must face up to the issue. The issue is simple and clear- will we or will we not grant to an ally, albeit a foreign power, a base on our Austraiian soil in a time of peace? The answer clearly must be, yes. This debate is not confined merely to the North West Cape base for there are other foreign bases in Australia. If members of the Labor Party in government vote for this Bill they will, in fact, be voting for the continuance of the other bases in Australia. We strongly support the continuance of those other bases. But the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the Minister for the Capital Territory and everybody else on that side of the House know clearly that if one votes yes for this Bill which their Government has put up, one is voting for the continuation of every United States base in Australia. That is the simplicity of the situation; that is the reality of the situation; that is, in a sense, the awesomeness of the situation.

I conclude by referring to 2 statements. One was made on 21 May 1963 when the debate on this subject was before this chamber. It comprises one sentence:

All that we assert is that there should be no annihilation without representation.

Those were the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), containing within them all the implications that by having that base we are risking annihilation. Yet the Prime Minister as the leader of the Government has renegotiated an agreement which, thank heaven, is maintaining the base with all its integrity. The Prime Minister said one thing in 1963 and now acts differently in Government. His word, I am afraid, in respect of foreign affairs and defence cannot be relied upon. The other quote is from the same gentleman, the Prime Minister, who 8 years later almost to the day- not 22 May but 2 1 May- said:

I thank the Minister for Defence for his effective work on behalf of our country in this matter as in so many others.

We know what happened to the Minister for Defence so shortly after that. Nevertheless, we can be thankful to Lance Barnard that he had the guts to stand out against the left and maintain this base and the other bases and make a giant contribution to ANZUS. He will be remembered. But it is time that the left, if it wants to undo the agreement, made its intentions clear. It should not mask itself and come in a fleeting way into a debate. For the debate on this major issue there are just 5 members of the Labor Party present in the chamber. They do not have the guts to come -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The right honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-The more I listen to the remarks of honourable members opposite in this debate the more I am convinced that they have been contaminated over the years by funds from the Central Intelligence Agency. When the CIA gets copies of their speeches in this debate tonight it will most proudly say: ‘We have not paid out in vain’. I remember the debates in 1963 on this very important issue that affects the Australian people. I remember the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, playing down the significance of this base. He used almost identical words to those used by the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) a short while ago. The right honourable member for Bruce used the phrase: ‘This is only a communications facility’. Sir Robert Menzies played down the base by saying: ‘This base is not a base in the sense of a war base. It is none other than a radio station’.

Mr Killen:

– What do you say it is?

Mr JAMES:

– I say that it is a base to communicate with 15 to 20 nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean. That is what its original intention was.

Mr Howard:

– Communicate with what?

Mr JAMES:

– If the honourable member keeps quiet he will learn something. He was not a member of this Parliament when this debate took place, and he probably will not be a member of this Parliament much longer. It is expected that each nuclear submarine would carry from 15 to 20 nuclear warheads, with a striking power at least 10 times greater than that of the bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Recently there was the 30th anniversary of the dropping of those bombs. When Sir Robert Menzies endeavoured to play down this communications station by saying that it was merely a radio station, it was pointed out to him that it was more important than one or two nuclear submarines; that it was a radio station that could communicate with 15 to 20 nuclear submarines as a result of the sole decision of one man, without Australia having any say in it whatsoever. That power was invested in the President of the United States who could give the submarines the order to fire.

At the time of this great debate in this Parliament a nuclear submarine was described by a member of the House of Commons as a mobile nuclear base. This is why at the time the Australian people were so concerned, although Australia, like many countries in the Western world, was then still enveloped in the Cold War. There was the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion, the contemplated invasion of Cuba. This caused Cuba to put Russian missiles onto its territory to defend itself against a contemplated invasion. This was the current of international affairs at that time, when the Labor Party had in its ranks the great divisions to which reference has been made tonight. Members of the Labor Party did not know whether or not they should wholly and solely oppose the base. I believe that the base, even more so today, is offensive to our Asian neighbours in view of the political changes that have taken place at our northern doorstep. All this legislation provides is for the Austraiian Government, on behalf of the Australian people, to have a greater say in the use of the base. It provides that the power of the President of the United States of America shall be restricted so that without consultation he cannot give orders to the base to contact nuclear submarines and give the order to fire. This has not been stated in the debate tonight. That is all we ask for.

Most of the other countries that have American bases on their soil have demanded at the time of the installation of those bases some say in their use. But the present Opposition at the time of the setting up of this base was going ‘all the way with LBJ’ and ‘Waltzing Matilda’ with the successive Presidents of the United States. The previous Government virtually sold Australia down the drain. We are seeking to restore some of the dignity of this nation which has been adopting a more independent foreign policy under the leadership of Prime Minister Whitlam. I think it is very timely, if not overdue, for this legislation to come before this Parliament, particularly because of the attitude of the Philippines Government which is expressing indignation or resentment about American bases in the Philippines- the naval base at Subic Bay and the giant airfield known as ‘Clark Field ‘. We all should know, but members of the Opposition would not admit, that the Philippines Government at present is expressing an idea as to how they can get America to relinquish control of those bases. If the Philippines Government cannot get America to relinquish control then it wants a greater say in the use of the bases. If members of the Opposition are frank and honest they will admit that this is true. We all knowthis includes members of the Opposition- that at the present time the Thai Government is most urgently desirous without offending the United States of having the United States relinquish its 5 giant air bases in northern Thailand. That was the opinion expressed to me a few weeks ago when I was in Thailand.

Mr Peacock:

– In Bangkok?

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. There has been so much resentment towards American servicemen in Thailand in recent years that when American servicemen went into the cities they said that they were not Americans. They said that they were Australians. There was a growing indignation towards the large number of American servicemen in Thailand.

Mr McLeay:

– That is not true.

Mr JAMES:

– It is true. I recently conversed at some length with an American in Thailand. He was a former soldier in Vietnam. He asked me to tie his handkerchief, which had been slipping down, around his arm. He was having a tattoo removed because it signified that he was an American serviceman. He said that he was ashamed of the role that his country was playing in world affairs. He had been to an appropriate place to have the tattoo removed.

Mr McLeay:

– Could he not just get his arm chopped off?

Mr JAMES:

– No. It is a pity the honourable member did not have his damn tongue chopped off because he had not made an intelligent comment tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Now look -

Mr Peacock:

– We are looking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member keeps interjecting he will be looking from outside the door. Let us have a bit of silence. If any members wish to make a contribution to the debate they may put their names on the list.

Mr JAMES:

– We all should know, too, that Turkey is asking America to relinquish her bases there. Pakistan refused to renew the commitment for an American air base there. Garry Powers was flying out of Pakistan when he was shot down by the Russians. He was photographing Russian nuclear bases. As a result of that incident which revealed the unfortunate attitude of the United States in world affairs, Pakistan refused to renew the lease on the U2 air base which the

Central Intelligence Agency was using in Pakistan. We are all aware that France got out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and asked America to remove its bases from French soil. This legislation does not go that far; it only asks for joint control. Portugal and Spain now are rethinking whether they should continue to permit America to have bases in their countries. In Greenland there is indignation about an American base there. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) referred to the build up, which he supports, in Diego Garcia.

Mr McLeay:

– Where is that?

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member would not know if he was sitting on it. The Harold Wilson Government is most unhappy about the American build up in Diego Garcia. To my mind America’s action is somewhat inconsistent with the attitude it adopted at the recent conference with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Helsinki about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At Helsinki they were talking about reducing their nuclear power, but on the other hand the United States is pouring millions of dollars into a build up at Diego Garcia. I admit that through the courtesy of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) I went one night to see a film in Parliament House which showed how Russia had expanded its bases in the Suez Canal region. I may be wrong but it is my belief that the presence of Russian nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean and in the Suez Canal region was to give a reassurance to the Arab oil states before they put the oil squeeze on the western world countries which caused so much chaos to industrialised America. The Russian submarines were there to deter an invasion of the Arab oil countries by the United States marines. I believe that because it was stated in one of the international magazines in the Parliamentary Library that President Ford and Mr Rockefeller would express no opposition should the Pentagon decide or recommend to the Government that the marines should be put into the Arab oil states. I believe that could well be the reason for the USSR naval presence in the Indian Ocean; it is to deter any invasion of the Arab oil countries.

I believe that this legislation will restore greater dignity to the Australian people. I believe there are millions of people in the United States who admire the courage of this Government for asking for joint say in the control of a nuclear base which could involve Australia in war, a base which is wholly and solely under the control of the United States President who can give the orders to fire. We all well know what happened to the last President of the United States and what happened in Watergate. I think this legislation should be applauded by every decent thinking Australian. The Government’s attitude is that no country should be able to involve Australia in war without the Australian Government having some say. Under the present situation this radio station or naval communications station can give directions to 15 or 20 nuclear submarines and order them to fire. The Australian Government should have some say in its control.

Mr Chipp:

– Vote against the Bill.

Mr JAMES:

– The Opposition had no say in it when Sir Robert Menzies alone made the decision that the Americans should have the whole say in and control over this 25 square miles of Australian soil. We all know, and it has been admitted by members of the Opposition, that this station can communicate with submarines at depths of up to 100 feet below the surface of the ocean. This legislation is timely. I applaud my Government for asking for joint control or a greater say in the use of the base so that Australia could not be involved in a nuclear war without the concurrence of the government of the day.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-This has been a most fascinating and interesting evening. In fact, during the last 2 nights members of this House have had more opportunities to discuss Australia’s defence preparedness than we have had probably in the entire 2Vi years of the present Government’s term of office. I thank, in particular, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) for giving such an excellent exposition on tattoos and turkeys. I cannot help being amazed at how many members of the present Government become experts in the field of foreign affairs at such short notice.

We need to take particular note of the fact that the very few members of the Government Party who have bothered to speak on this most important Bill have emphasised what is better known as the view of the left wing of the Party. We have been told, for example, by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) that ‘this is not the world of the past in which the ANZUS Treaty was written’ that ‘the hours of peril and need are receding more rapidly than in the past’ and that the present Opposition, when it was the Government of this Commonwealth, was but a satellite of the United States of America’ in foreign affairs. So he went on. He was prepared to describe this piece of legislation as ‘a relic of the past’, saying that ‘it was one of the most mischievous operations of the last Government’.

Having placed the view of Government members in context I refer now to a comment about the Agreement made by a former Minister for External Affairs, Sir Garfield Barwick. What he said in 1963 is still relevant today:

Only those who live in a world of fantasy can deny the vital importance in peace-time of such a system of communication as an item of defence preparation and preparedness. Indeed, its very existence is a significant element in the deterrence of aggression. Those who are interested in peace may well set much store by this aspect of the establishment of this station.

Regardless of the situation, for many yearssince 1963, in fact- the Australian Labor Party insisted on renegotiating the agreements concerning foreign bases, and it based its insistence on the concept of sovereignty. However, as we can see with this legislation, the fact is that the renegotiation was nothing more than a sham to meet the dictates of a left wing dominated Australian Labor Party. The members of the Australian Labor Party Executive may no longer be faceless, but they still control that Party, just as they did in 1963 when the leaders of the Parliamentary Party were left out in the street in the middle of a Canberra winter. Regrettably, since that time the Australian Labor Party has not altered its attitude towards the base at NorthWest Cape. What we must remember, however, is that Sir Garfield Barwick, when he explained the question of sovereignty in relation to the Agreement between the United States and Australia, said that Article 3 of the Agreement performed 2 functions, and the first one was the more relevant. He said:

It provides for consultation between the 2 Governments and it limits the use to which this station may be put.

I emphasise that point because at various stages over the last few years Labor Party organisations have suggested that atomic bombs and so forth may be kept at this base. If that ever did happenand it did not- it would have been quite contrary to the basic understanding between the then Australian Government and the Government of the United States.

Last month I was in Washington and I took the opportunity while there to discuss with the Americans precisely what is the relevance of this facility in relation to their global requirements. They emphasised to me that the North- West Cape base is still of primary importance for communications, and that is all it is. It is a base for the transference of messages from Washington to naval units in the Pacific and Indian ocean areas. It also has the capacity, as the honourable member for Hunter correctly pointed out, to make contact with nuclear submarines. What is so unusual about that when all the major powers today- Britain, the United States, possibly China and certainly the Soviet Union and Francehave nuclear submarines and submarines with nuclear potential? It is therefore not unreasonable that any State having available any facilities of this type would use them as a means of communication with all their units and bases.

Nevertheless, this Government was forced by the organisational wing of the Party to go to Washington to re-negotiate this agreement, and the Minister at the time made great play of his claim that the Austraiian people had been sold out in 1963 and this Government was going to right a wrong. It was an act of treachery, we were told by the Minister for the Capital Territory. Where was this act of treachery? We entered into this agreement because we were requested to do so by an ally, the United States, which at that time was, as it still is, a signatory to the ANZUS Treaty. The essence of the ANZUS Treaty is that all 3 parties- the United States, New Zealand and Australia- are expected to take necessary action separately and jointly to develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Therefore, the establishment of this naval facility was an obvious method by which the United States could play its part under the ANZUS pact as well as meet its global commitments. As far as Australia was concerned, the provision of the site for this base gave us a capacity to live up to our side of the agreement.

What this Government fails to realise is that there is no point in giving lip service to agreements such as ANZUS unless it is prepared to take an active interest in the Treaty and make it viable. It is no good regarding it just as a piece of paper that can be abrogated whenever it suits Australia. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) came back from the United States and emphasised that the ANZUS Treaty remains a cornerstone of Australian foreign policy. Why did he say that? Does he really believe it or is he just trying to pander to an electorate which he should know as well as we do is very conscious of the need to build up sufficient defence capacity in this country and through our alliances so that Australia’s future can be secure.

Unfortunately in the last 2 years we have heard so many doubts thrown on the capacity of the ANZUS Treaty. I had reason in Washington to say to the Americans: ‘Exactly what is the substance of ANZUS today?’ In other words: ‘Are you prepared to back Australia if we are threatened by an external power?’ I was told without any equivocation that there are certain areas of the world whose future as far as the

United States is concerned is simply not negotiable. One of those areas, of course, is western Europe; another is Israel; the third is Japan; the fourth is Australia and New Zealand. That order has no significance. Then I went a step further and said to the State Department and Defence Department officials I was talking to: ‘Under what conditions will you consider the ANZUS Treaty to be no longer- of effect?’ The reply was equally cogent. They said: ‘We shall consider the ANZUS Treaty to be viable and effective so long as the Australian Government is prepared to honour it and is prepared to show itself to be an ally of the United States in the full sense of the word ‘. This simply is a take it or leave it situation but the Government cannot have it both ways. If it wants to have the ANZUS Treaty it must accept the responsibilities and obligations of Australia as well as those of the United States and New Zealand. It is time that this Government was honest enough to tell the people whether it is prepared to live up to these responsibilities or not.

This Treaty, linked in as closely as it is with such bases as the US naval communication station, cannot be seen in a piecemeal manner and it is for that reason that although the Opposition is supporting the amendments to this legislation we are not prepared to accept many of the strange concepts, cliches and shibboleths which we have heard from the Government side tonight. We are certainly not prepared to accept the claim that we committed acts of treachery when we entered into this agreement with the specific intention of honouring our obligations to the ANZUS alliance.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I have never seen government speakers less comfortable than they have been in this debate because they have not really wanted to say the truth. The truth is that their left wing demands from them and they do not all agree with this that they should renounce the United States alliance and go into the communist orbit. This is what the debate is all about, as indeed it was in 1963 when it came on with the faceless men dictating to the then Opposition. Among the contradictions in what government supporters have said I particularly noted one statement by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant). He said that no government has a right to bind the future of Australia for so long ahead. He said it should be bound for not longer than 3 years. That came very well, did it not, from a Minister in the Government which only a couple of months ago was wanting to enter into long term loans for $4,000m to be repaid in 20 years, I think it was, for $20,000m which would have bound the whole economic future of Australia? It comes well from a government to say ‘You cannot enter into long term agreements’. This is just a small instance of the insincerity of the Government of the contradictions which underlie its approach to this whole matter.

I do not want to talk about this in terms of party politics because more important things are in front of us. We are not just talking about the exercise of Australian sovereignty. We are really talking about the continued existence of the Australian nation because, use what comfortable words you like, the existence of the Australian nation is not as secure for the future as it has been in the past. Our defences in a sense are gone. The United States has decided to withdraw from the Asian area. The British fleet is no longer here and the British power can no longer protect us. Our only real defence at present lies in the existence of the United States fleet in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and without that we are virtually defenceless.

We heard people tonight talk nonsense about Australia being able to be independent and being able to defend herself. This is nonsense and the tragedy is that it is being uttered by supporters of a government which has no intention of allowing Australia to regain any defence capability, a government which brought in’ a Budget only a couple of nights ago which provides for a diminution in the manpower of the Australian forces, a government which knows that by ourselves we have no adequate capacity to determine the continued existence of the Australian nation. Yet this is a government which, embarrassed by its pro-communist left wing, is out to break what ties we have with the United States and to provoke the United States, insofar as it lies within its power, into abandoning the defence of Australia and the reality of the ANZUS Pact. The ANZUS Pact is not a very definite pact. Its continuation depends upon the Congress of the United States exercising its constitutional prerogative from time to time. The ANZUS Pact is only valid and only means anything insofar as the goodwill of the United States allows it to be valid or to mean anything. Under these circumstances, what do we think of a government which is trying to imperil the future of Australia by crawling to the left wing and the communists who control its own left wing in the unions?

We have heard the words ‘treachery’ and treason’ used tonight by people speaking from the centre table. I throw those words back. There is treachery; there is treason. Not all members of the Government are concerned in this, but some members of the Government who crawl to the left wing and who do so knowingly are guilty of that kind of treachery and treason. Do not let us think that we in Australia are a small prize. We are a small nation, sure. We do not have much capacity to defend ourselves, but as it happens we are a nation which has immense riches within its borders, a nation whose minerals and food may well be important to the economy of Asia. To believe that we will remain without defences or friends as a sovereign nation is to delude ourselves entirely. But this apparently is the doctrine of the left wing of the Government.

Let us look at this base at North West Cape. It was established as part of a global strategy which so far has contained communist aggression. At least it has been contained in the major theatres of the world, even though it may have inched towards us in this theatre. If it had not been for this nuclear capacity being in the hands of the free world, I have no doubt that communist aggression would have gone much further and got much worse. So this is the point: The base at North West Cape was established in 1 963 as one of the pins in the whole of global strategy. It was a necessary pin in global strategy. I do not think it will be a necessary pin for very much longer because, as it happens, the development of new technologies, the development of satellites and what goes with them, will shortly be rendering the base out of date. That has not happened as yet but it will be happening within a few years’ time, and the vital nature of that base to global strategy will shortly go. But during this time should we be insulting our allies? Should we be saying to the United States of America, as this Government is saying: ‘We would like to get you out. We may keep you just because there is an agreement, but we do not like the agreement. We do not like you. We do not want you ‘.

That is the attitude of the Government today. That is what we are up against. It is something which strikes a blow at the whole security of Australia. Well, it does not matter so much now because this Government has not got long to run. The damage that it is doing to the security of Australia will be remedied shortly by a change of government, and the United States and our other allies in the free world will know that once again Australia will have a government which represents the view of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people on this issue, which will not twist and determine Australia’s foreign policy in the interests of the communist powers to the control of the left wing, that minority pro-communist control, which apparently is still so potent over the thinking of the Government when it comes to foreign poliCY

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– in reply- Tonight in this debate we have heard the echoes of the aroused passions and the emotions of over a dozen years ago. The debate, in which most honourable members have spoken, recalls that which took place in this place some 12 years ago. I want to try to look at this matter dispassionately. What concerned me were 2 misconceptions. The first was a misconception about what constitutes an ally and the sort of stance which partners in an alliance should take. The other misconception concerns the nature of the negotiations that are contained in this BUI.

Let us take the concept of alliances. All of usparticularly members of the Opposition- can recall the days of ‘AH the Way with LB J’ when Australia was an obsequious satellite of the United States of America, when what was the lucky country had become the lackey country. This position that was occupied by Australia throughout the 1960s was not a credit to Australia or to the Australian Government and neither was it of advantage to the United States Government. I can recall just before I came into Parliament the words of a departing United States diplomat, an old colleague of mine, Ed Cronk, who was the United States charge d ‘affairs in Australia. On his departure not only from Australia but also from the foreign service of the United States State Department he was quoted in the Australian Press as saying:

The United States does not want allies who just follow our lead. We want allies that will come up with ideas of their own. It is much healthier than one leader and a lot of followers.

That is a very important concept of the role of an ally in a healthy alliance. Now let me quote President Nixon- not that I am given to quoting him- in his balmier days when he was VicePresident. He said this in 1964:

If domination by an aggressor can destroy the freedom of a nation, too much dependence on a protector can eventually erode its dignity.

I do not think that in any alliance we have to boast or act as though we are going through some boy scout ceremony of crediting our allegiance by lying flat on the floor and saying: ‘We are your ally. We are prepared to do everything you want us to do’. I think it was this unhealthy nature of the alliance during the period of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government that affected the very real and basic relationship that exists between the people of the United States of America and the people of Australia.

I want to make a couple of statements and I want to make them slowly so that they are understood completely. In terms of the global deterrentthe global nuclear balance- Australia is fundamentally aligned with the United States. This United States Naval Communications Station Agreement Bill fits into that alliance. I want to say that again: The Australian Governmentthe Australian Labor Party- in terms of the global balance, the nuclear deterrent- the big league, if you like, of nuclear balance between the Soviet Union and the US- is fundamentally aligned with the US. We can regard that alliance as the wood. But within the wood there is a variety of trees. It would be very strange indeed if I, as an Austraiian Minister, did not from the Australian point, see issues in a perspective different from the way my counterpart in the USA, the Secretary of Defence, would see them. This is important. Australia, because of its position, has an attitude of mind; it should have an attitude of mind. Because of its position Australia should have an orientation and outlook that is not necessarily- why should it be?- exactly the same as that of the US. I believe that it is the role and the responsibility of an ally when he does see things differently to make that point of view known, and if not convince his ally of his point of view, at least to ensure that the ally is aware of what that point of view is. That is the nature of a healthy relationship between the Australian and US partners in ANZUS at the present time.

I want to take up the misconceptions that flowed from some speakers in the debate about the nature of this legislation and of the previous legislation. The previous legislation which dealt with the establishment of a naval communications station at North West Cape was introduced in 1963 by Sir Garfield Barwick. It was- I state this quite deliberately- a blatant and deliberate abdication of our sovereignty. Let me quote from the speech of Sir Garfield Barwick delivered at this table in this place in 1963. He said:

By the agreement-

He is talking about the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement Bill - the Australian Government permits the American Government to establish, maintain and operate for a minimum period of 25 years a naval communications station at North West Cape in Western Australia. The North West Cape is the north-western most point of Australia seaward of” the Exmouth Gulf. The station will be a United States communications station under the sole control of the US Government.

The obnoxious part- I repeat that word ‘obnoxious’; the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has used it and I agree with the use of the word- was not the actual terms of the agreement but the accompanying exchange of letters between the then Ambassador Battle, the U.S. Ambassador to Australia, and Sir Garfield Barwick. Article 3 of the Agreement spelt out the need for consultation. But in what I regard as the infamous exchange of letters which accompanied that Agreement -

Mr Peacock:

– Infamous?

Mr MORRISON:

-Infamous exchange of letters.

Mr Peacock:

– And obnoxious?

Mr MORRISON:

– And obnoxious exchange of letters.

Mr Peacock:

– They are very strong words.

Mr MORRISON:

– They are very strong words and I use them quite deliberately. In the letter which was concurred in by an Australian Minister for External Affairs it was said: ‘Let us constrict the interpretation of consultation under Article 3 ‘. The letter, referring to Article 3, said: Whereas this construction is not intended to restrict the Government of Australia’s rights of consultation, it is intended to spell out clearly that consultation does not carry with it any degree of control over the station or its use’. What we sought to do in the renegotiation was to establish the dignity of Australia as a partner or, as I have sought to express it, as an ally of the United States. In that we were successful because we did not, and there was never any intention to, renounce the Agreement. But we were concerned that the station was exclusively a United States concern save for the presence of a single Royal Australian Navy officer. We were concerned to change this and to secure effective Australian participation in the management and operation of the base as we considered benefitted our national status. In the arrangements which were entered into by my predecessor and Dr Schlesinger, the United States Secretary of Defence, in January 1974 these things were achieved: Agreement that the station would be operated as a joint facility; the appointment of an Australian deputy commander with status in the management of the station; the posting of Australian servicemen to key operational posts in the station. At this date there are 47 Australian servicemen at the base whereas, under the previous Government, there was one.

A lot has been said about the concept of control. The North West Cape station is not an originating station. The messages that go out to the United States fleet in the Indian Ocean or to wherever the transmitter can contact it are in terms of transmission. I repeat that it is not an originating station. It is only a monitoring and repeating station. So this is not where the concept of effective co-ordination and consultation comes to pass. Of course the practical, realistic and effective mode of monitoring and control is certainly not a matter of intervention in the operations of the station. The proper focus of our effort is the United States global policy. If we know what that is about, we will have an accurate understanding of the type of message being transmitted through North West Cape. To this end what we set out to do was to establish, to regain and to get effective consultation with the United States which, by this exchange of letters, had been denied to the Australian Government. Through discussions with the United States which form the basis of the legislation which we have before us tonight we made that consultation explicit. The substantial features are to ensure, to quote from the document:

  1. . that the Australian Government would have full and timely information about strategic and operational developments relevant to the station and their significance for Australian national interests.

That is contained in a document signed by my predecessor and by the Unites States Secretary of Defence. So what we have achieved is effective consultation. I was just recently in the United States where we had the types of consultation that are important and necessary for the effective control of the operations of the station at North West Cape- through Ministerial level, through normal diplomatic consultations. This was a form of consultaion that the previous government was even boasting that it no longer wanted. I think it is of great concern that through nearly 2 decades of debate in Australia it seems from the Liberal-Country Party point of view that one could not really be pro-United States unless one was anti-Australian. The Opposition was antiAustralian in the attitude that it took to the derogation of sovereignty of the North West Cape transmission station. The Bill has been debated at length. I understand that the Opposition, despite all its verbosity this evening, is not opposing the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 459

ADJOURNMENT

The Honourable F. M. Daly-Production of Oil from Coal.

Motion (by Mr Morrison) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn. (Quorum formed.)

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I have been requested by my parliamentary colleagues to bring before the notice of the House that the honourable Fred Daly, Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House, has today served 32 years in Parliament as a member and a Minister, having been elected as a member for Martin, New South Wales, on 21 August 1943. He served as the honourable member for that electorate until 1949 when, due to the enlargement of the Parliament and the redistribution of that year, he became the member for Grayndler, which electorate he has represented for the past 26 years. He served as Party Whip for 6 years, from 1950 to 1956. He was elected to the Opposition Party Executive in 1963 and served in that position continuously until 1972. Following the election in that year, he was chosen as a member of Cabinet and was appointed Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House. Having served in this House for 20 years and 3 months, I can say with all sincerity that Fred has done more to bring about the standards of services and conditions that are now enjoyed by every member of this House and of the Senate, particularly back bench members, than has any other Minister since Federation. I do not believe that any member of the Parliament would disagree with my opinion. As a matter of fact, honourable members from both sides of the House and the Senate have spoken in laudatory terms of what he has done for them.

I now wish to say a few words about the gentleman in question. The name ‘Fred Daly’ is a byword in the electorate of Grayndler, particularly in the suburbs of Newtown, Marrickville and Leichhardt. He is patron of the Newtown Rugby League Football Club and, as we all know, rugby league is the sport of rugged, physically well equipped young men. It has been my pleasure to have known Fred, his gracious wife Teresa, his daughter Margaret and his son Lawrence for many years. I have found Fred always to be a shy, retiring and timid person, lacking any sense of provocation. His speeches never invite interjections or retorts of any kind. I am informed that others wish to contribute something on this occasion; so I shall curtail my remarks. I conclude by congratulating Fred on 3 points: Firstly, his sincerity, diligence and conscientious work for the Australian Labor Party in a lifetime of dedication to a cause in which he believes; secondly, his 32 years of splendid service to the Parliament and the Australian community; and, thirdly I emphasise this again- his outstanding achievements which have provided the highest standard of conditions and amenities ever enjoyed by members and senators.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– It is with considerable pleasure that I rise- not because it is the obsequy of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) but because, in spite of the love that he so often demonstrates for me and my Party colleagues who sit in Possum Corner, we respect the man for his contribution and for his years of service. We also, of course, respect the other honourable member who I understand celebrates today his 30th year in this place and who is not present at the moment- the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). Between them they reflect more than the years of most honourable members on this side of the House.

The very memorable origins of Frederick Michael Daly were in that fair city of Currabubula, not far from the boundaries of my electorate. It was there that he learned his bushcraft, which he demonstrated so positively when on the first occasion on which he gave a political speech after his endorsement as a candidate, I am led to believe, he actually presented it in the wrong electorate. This master of electoral boundaries unfortunately had not realised that Spring Street, Bondi, at that stage was in the electorate of Phillip and not in the electorate of Marrickville, which he was contesting. However, he still attempts to persuade- and on several occasions has persuaded- the House as to the reasons for movements of electoral boundaries. Perhaps it all dates back to those original machinations. On another occasion, I understand, he worked for the Department of Works. I am told that it was he who dreamt up the concept of the Sydney Eastern Suburbs underground railway. That is one of the reasons that it is still being built.

There is one characteristic of the honourable member for Grayndler that does concern me. He has so often presented himself in this chamber and elsewhere as a champion of the Irish. I thought it might be appropriate in those circumstances if I looked up the good book to find something of his family record. I am told that the origin of the clan- although it is not a clan- was the late Gore Picton of Melbourne. His arms are Per fess Argent and Or, a Lion rampant per fess

Sable and Gules, in chief two dexter Hands couped at the wrists of the last. The only thing that comes out of the crest that appealed to me was a greyhound courant sable. Perhaps that goes well with his patronage of the football club. Interestingly enough, it is essentially an English family. The thing that concerns me most, however, is the motto: ‘Show Fidelity to God and King’. I only wish he showed more fidelity to the Opposition than he sometimes does in this place.

In all seriousness, the honourable member is the father of this House. He is a man whose parliamentary wit and wisdom keeps us in good humor- at times- and on other occasions stirs us to the point where we sometimes wish that he had seen fit to resign his seat long before his 32nd year in this Parliament. He is, of course, the father of the House. He has served this House and his electorate well. The only problem is where he goes in the future. All honourable members on this side of the House remember the occasions when he has occasionally left Australiafor his country’s good- and in that particular phase, of course, he achieved some distinction for the duration of his stays abroad. But in the present context of the changed mode of parliamentary travel, perhaps it is not quite so likely that he dilly dallies as much as he once was accused of doing. It might be appropriate, in concluding my remarks, to do so with good humour and high respect. As Leader of the House for the Government I believe he has served the Parliament well although there are occasions when I must admit there have been some differences between us. Essentially, however, the Parliament does work well under his jurisdiction. I only wish he would give us a little more opportunity to speak a little more about some of those matters which concern us.

There once was a Currabubula boy called Daly

Who believed himself to be a Trevor Bailey;

He didn’t bowl

As he could poll

And so 32 years later

Dilly dally still dallies daily.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and myself were once in attendance at a State funeral. He said to the protocol officer: ‘Well, how is the hospitality officer?’ He looked at him with what Kipling would have described as a webbed and inward turning eye’. He said: ‘I am not the hospitality officer at funerals. I am the protocol officer’.

The honourable gentleman has spent 32 years in this place. I said to him this afternoon that by his looks and by his guile I am left the impression that he has spent exactly twice that number of years in this place. I am bound to use the House as something of a public confessional to say that the honourable gentleman represents the complete and utter exasperation of my life. I have, for some 20 years, been trying to insult him. It is impossible. I once accused him of suffering from the Munchausen syndrome. He said he thought it was a horse running at Randwick but he would check on it. I said: ‘Well, we will meet at Phillipi’. He said: ‘Don’t you put such an indecent proposal to me but I will find out where it is.’

Many years ago- I hope it is not a breach of personal confidence but something was going on in this place- he said: ‘Come and have a drink ‘. I asked: ‘Where?’ He said: ‘In my room’. He shared, in those days, an office with a very distinguished member of this Parliament, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) who has spent 30 years here. We went there. I said: ‘Where is the drink? In the filing cabinet?’ He pulled out the filing cabinet. Do honourable members know what came out? It was a bottle of Scotch whisky. Do honourable members know what it was filed under? It was ‘ unity tickets ‘.

I am a card carrying member of the Irish Association and it is a matter of some anguish to me to find out that the progenitors of Frederick Michael Daly are not as Irish as he would occasionally make out. I have looked at a different family tree from the one which my friend the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has looked at. I found a Daly crest which bespeaks to this: ‘On a wreath of the colours a cat’s head erased at the neck and a fronte of a tabby colour holding in the mouth a rat sable’. After having heard that cats were associated with the honourable gentleman I found myself immediately a victim of ailurophobia which, shortly, means a morbid fear of cats.

I looked at the honourable gentleman’s maiden speech, which was delivered in October 1943. What a powerful and forward looking pronunciation that was. Let me recapture something of the spirit of it. He said:

An essential of the new order-

That felicitous term would have tumbled out of his mouth- must be full time employment for all those willing to work.

There it is. My honourable friend is beyond insult. I have not the slightest doubt that that will go out in the next Australian Assistance Plan as the thoughts of Fred Daly. It is not as though my friend the honourable member for New England has turned his literary talent in the singular to the honourable member for Grayndler. He fell over some time ago, the House will recall, and broke his arm. I found out that he was out walking his dog- a dog which rejoices in the name of Grayndler. I sent him a telegram saying that his behaviour should be reported to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals but he was not taken aback by that. Australia’s poet laureate has turned to the honourable gentleman this evening to mark his 32 years here and this is what has been produced:

The time has come’, Fred Daly said,

To talk of many things:

Of parliamentary privilege,

And how to pull the strings.

Of why we travel 2nd class

Though Gough still has his wings.

As Leader of the House ‘, said Fred,

My works have been sublime

I ‘ve guillotined Bills out of sight,

To meet the stress of time.

For 32 long years I’ve slaved

And still just in my prime.

Yet I must tell you all ‘, said Fred,

That I have had a ball.

My Opposition friends may say

I’ve had a lot of gall.

But when I go they’ll doubtless say: “Our Fred was loved by all ‘ ‘. ‘

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– The House has certainly never heard to better advantage the 2 speakers who have spoken first in the adjournment debate. They did so with splendid preparation. They had a splendid case and their good humour and their wit were enjoyed by all. Their verses, I have no doubt, will been anthologised for many years to come. It is not often realised how well read is the Leader of the House, Mr Daly, and how often he goes back to the basis of his faith, political and otherwise. When he first stood for Parliament in a seat which was later abolished, his slogan was: Give us this day our Daly Fred’. I would not deny that he has come out with some better slogans in the succeeding 32 years.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), referred to Fred Daly’s birth place, Currabubula. Of course, I then thought of my own filing system. I went back to a copy of the Northern Daily Leader of Anzac Day, this year or last year- it does not give the year. But there on the front page, not only in black and white but with coloured headings and footnotes is: ‘ Currabubula ‘s most famous son returns’. This is the first issue of the Northern Daily

Leader where a Labor man has dominated the front page. Not only that, I happen to have preserved the fifth page on which there are 5 photographs of Currabubula ‘s most famous son. The Northern Daily Leader is a journal of record. I can spare only a couple of quotations from the series of events which accompanied the return of Currabubula ‘s most famous son on Anzac evelast year or this year?

Mr Daly:

– This year.

Mr WHITLAM:

-This is generally a Country Party electorate. It quotes him as saying:

I once jokingly told a Country Party M.P. that my father knew Thunderbolt’. He quipped: ‘I thought he was Thunderbolt’.

That is the only time that I have ever known a Country Party member to score off Fred Daly. The Northern Daily Leader goes on to report, obviously correctly:

He is proud of his birthplace, much to the irritation of his Country Party opponents.

They thought I had invented the place until I showed them a map’.

He pays proper tribute to his parents and to his school teachers. There is a quotation from one of the last

My old school teacher, Miss Nell Campbell, once said to me’. “You haven’t any brains at all. You are sure to end up in politics”.’

Fred Daly did end up in politics. He got in extraordinarily young. Not only is he the father of the House, as the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party has said. He is also the father of the Parliament, as the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) has pointed out. He has certainly come a long way. He is in charge of members’ transport. He came into the Parliament with an interest in this matter and some expertise. I believe that his last job before becoming a member of Parliament was in the bicycle area of Bennett and Wood. But he certainly has improved the quality of members* transport. Contrary to some newspaper reports, he did not speak in Caucus on this subject at all and he voted in favour of economy travel for members of Parliament and public servants.

Nevertheless, last weekend I was out in the back blocks, because I love the country and I am loved in the country. I was at a place twice as far away as Currabubula. It was Eulo. The nearest large town, 42 kilometres away, is Cunnamulla. I was at the lizard derby. The local member, my good friend the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), said to me that Fred Daly had certainly made it easier for members with large electorates to discharge their electoral responsibilities. It is now possible for private members with large electorates to have access, to a degree that was not previously possible even for Ministers, to every form of transport, including charter aircraft. Again for the first time since he became a member 32 years ago, Fred Daly has made it possible for members to receive additional electoral assistance. Again this reform was very gravely misrepresented, and he was traduced for it. There can be no question that members who have the responsibility of looking after the numbers of people that we do in this House and the range of matters on which we have to advise as we do in this House certainly needed that additional assistance. Members of Parliament, irrespective of their politics, can be indebted to this great parliamentarian for the faculties that he has made available to them.

He has been a great parliamentarian. I think I can say that nothing has given him more satisfaction than being able to demonstrate that the 4 latest members of the ministry, Senators Wheeldon and James McClelland and Messrs Riordan and Berinson, got there because they had distinguished themselves as parliamentarians. Fred Daly loves this place. He loves the colour, the confrontation of it. He constantly advocates thai members of Parliament should devote themselves to the processes of the Parliament and follow the proceedings of the Parliament. He has pointed out to so many of our colleagues with legitimate aspirations that the best way to get further is to demonstrate thenprowess in the Parliament, their willingness to give it and to take it in the Parliament, to follow its proceedings and to contribute to them.

He has a capacious memory. Certainly nobody could have profited more from 32 years in Parliament then he. He knows precedents. He has mulled them over. He is creative in his adaptation of those precedents. I cannot say how much I am indebted to him for his conduct of the affairs of the House. There is no doubt that our affairs, in a time of extraordinary stress, politically and economically, have been conducted with the greatest dexterity by the Leader of the House. Also, he has done so with a degree of good humour which I never thought would have been possible. Since he became Leader of the House there have been only 2 occasions when it has sat after 1 1 p.m. On those 2 occasions the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, Mr Lionel Bowen, was in charge. That means that we can always be sure of having a full day, an entertaining day and a wholesome night’s rest. As we go to sleep peacefully and chastely in our beds at the Kurrajong or what-have-you, we can all bear in mind the fact that our day has been entertaining and our night will be restful because of the long experience and the dedication to this institution of our colleague the honourable member for Grayndler.

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

- Mr Speaker, rarely have 1 heard tonight’s speakers to better advantage. I thank particularly my colleague the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) for his sincere and complimentary remarks. In return, may I say that he also is a very distinguished member of this House and his cheerful acceptance of giving and taking and suffering the disappointments that go with parliamentary life should be an example to all members of Parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that my slogan was: ‘Give us this day our Daly Fred’. But the Liberals on that occasion, as usual, were very dirty in their campaign and they put out a slogan that I thought was very nasty. It was: Be healthy, be liberal, be clean, change Daly. It was a good sign but they put it up in too many places near the gas works and it did not last long. I am happy to say that very few of my girls changed Daly.

I sincerely thank honourable members for their compliments. I thank my colleague, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I have a soft spot for the Country Party although it may not always be apparent. I look with great concern at Ralph Hunt and worry about how he will go in the electorate. When I lived in Currabubula the only culture was agriculture. Now, under Liberal and National Country Party representation, they have really turned the corner. When I went to Currabubula to attend an art show even I bought a few products in the company of my distinguished friend from New England. I thank him sincerely for his complimentary remarks tonight. In other circumstances and at other times and if I had been misguided- you never know- I might have been a National Country Party member. Fortunately I saw the light in time and shifted to the city.

I was interested also to hear my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) speak tonight. I am always worried about Philippi because I understand that when I get to Philippi I will know my hour has come. I am always embarrassed by the honourable member for Moreton because he is so intelligent that it takes me days to know whether I have been insulted or praised by him. Whenever he says anything about me the Library goes mad. Its officers say: ‘Do you want to know what Mr Killen said again?’ I say: ‘Yes’. They say to me: ‘It is all right’. So I go and rest happily. The honourable member might recollect also that with one of those gags I sometimes shoot down 58 galahs. Little did we know the talent of the honourable members opposite for poetry. Tonight we heard it even from the National Country Party. That is really notable. The honourable member for Moreton is a well known poet in this place. I thank honourable members sincerely for their very generous remarks. I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who made possible my occupation of my present position, for his very complimentary remarks.

When I came to this place I made Paul Keating look like a heavyweight. I weighed 8 stone 6 pounds and thought I knew everything; but when I looked across the table and saw Billy Hughes, the late John Curtin, the late Ben Chifley, not to mention the late Artie Fadden, Sir John McEwen, Harold Holt and Larry Anthony, the father of Doug Anthony, I knew that I was not the top weight that I thought I was. Politics has given to me the opportunity to live with some of the really great men on both sides of the Parliament. I came into this Parliament at the time of the war in 1943 and was here when Douglas MacArthur walked into the dining room, where we sat tonight, and it was a case of salvation through him, America and others. They are great memories of grim and difficult times. They are memories that I cherish and for which I have a great regard. I was privileged to enter the Parliament when I was young. They were formative years and years that I have never forgotten. I had the opportunity, thanks to my membership of the Labor Party and the support of the people in my district, to mingle with the greats of Australian politics and to have not only experiences but also memories that probably come to few people.

It is interesting to note that at this stage there is nobody on the staff or in the Parliament who was here when I came here. There is a certain sadness about that, but a great deal of experience and many memories are associated with the time that has elapsed since I first came to the Parliament. The National Country Party will well remember the late Joe Abbott, a famous Country Party member. In those days there were great debates. We did see fit to nationalise the banks on one occasion. That not only frightened the banks but also, I think, frightened hell out of us. Few people would know what an exciting experience it is for an honourable member who has a majority of about 150 in an electorate of 70 000 to have to listen to thousands and thousands of protests about legislation. Some of our fellows had 2 people helping them- one opening the protests and the other destroying them, they were so frightened.

People tell me today that we have problems but they just do not know what was around in those days. Not many people realise that during the war years, when we were looking for a vote, it was difficult even to get a sheep’s liver. First of all a woman who wanted one had to go and get a medical prescription. Then she had to send it to the rationing commission, and then the rationing commission rang up the local member to see whether she was entitled to the liver, and if she was entitled to it she sent the prescription to the butcher. Then the butcher sent it to the rationing commission and in the end I sent her a letter and said: ‘The liver is all right, madam; you can live a while longer’. It sounds funny now but it kept a lot of people alive. The Indian people in Australia wanted rice. Well, one was forever racing around looking for rice packets. Those kinds of things all happened in those years of conflict, and I have great memories of them.

I found when I looked up the record tonight that I have served with 8 Prime Ministers, the vast majority of them, unfortunately, Liberals. I also found that I have been here in the time of 9 GovernorsGeneral. In addition to that, of course,- 1 served with other ex-Prime Ministers in Jim Scullin and the late Sir Earle Page and others. All in all they are memories worth recalling. A night like this in the Parliament is to me a tremendous thing and I thank sincerely those on both sides of the House who have made it possible.

When I was elected to Parliament I was told that I was a oncer. I ask those honourable members opposite who hold slim seats to remember that. Then I won the second time and I was a twicer. Then the electors made me a lifer, which made me happier still. The point about the thrust of politics is that it is a dangerous thing to make permanent enemies on either side or even in one’s own Party because the fellow who is against you today may be with you tomorrow. Consequently while we fight bitterly here, I always think that it is like a football match. You want to be able to forget what has happened if you can. But emotions run deep, issues are great and, of course, inevitably we get into conflict sometimes in a way that involves us much more deeply than we would wish.

In the Parliament we represent all sections. No matter who we might be, we are privileged and tremendously fortunate to be members of Parliament when we realise that there are only 127 of us out of a population of 13 million. When we think things are bad, we should remember that we have been chosen to act in the interests of the people whom we want to see enjoy a good way of life, free and secure economically and in every way.

Generally speaking I have had great friendships on both sides of the Parliament. I will never forget how magnificent my friend the honourable member for Moreton was on one occasion. It was a magnificent occasion. Even the then Prime Minister said so. I value his friendship although I would not like him to represent me in court. But he is all right to listen to here.

Having said so much, I would like to thank again sincerely members of this House. I have spoken tonight in a somewhat congenial and frivolous way but I would like honourable members to know that the way in which I have spoken does not hide the sincerity I feel tonight for the comradeship displayed in this gathering and for the sentiments expressed by all who have spoken. In every way this will be a golden day in my political career. It will be something to remember; something to record. I never thought on that long day. 32 years ago today that I would see such a day. To you all I express my sincere thanks for a really great compliment which is deeply appreciated. I will seek to restore first class air travel and also cut out the use of the gag and the guillotine as a gesture of my appreciation and goodwill to you all.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I should mention to the House that it has been drawn to my attention that the honourable member’s family slogan is, Virtue is the path of life. We will remember to remind him of what he has just said.

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

– I do not wish to appear to be discourteous after what has been said but perhaps honourable members may have thought that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) was going to retire undefeated. In this Parliament on 27 September 1973 I proposed by way of a private member’s motion, which was carried, that the Australian Government and the Victorian Government get together to plan the use of our natural resources of brown coal. This objective could be achieved by way of a carefully planned program and feasibility studies into the establishment of a national project for the production of oil from coal. My request was for the Australian Government to co-operate and to assist the Victorian Government to bring this about. That move was made 2 years ago during which time the only activity of any consequence has been in Victoria. But let that not be a criticism to any great degree of the Austraiian Government because there are some real reservations on the part of the Victorian Government about the possibility of a Connor takeover. With the great earnestness that our Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) may have to carry out such an exercise- I am pleased that he is sitting in the chamber tonight- there would be no possibility of his doing so because of the proprietary rights which are Victoria’s over the La Trobe Valley coal, and I think that the Minister might agree with me on that point.

In my earnestness to have this national project and national necessity become a reality I asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy a number of questions about this matter. Because of the information that I had acquired about the process of getting oil from coal, I made a private trip overseas to West Germany and to the German Democratic Republic. My trip has widened my vision and confirmed the points of view that I held. Obtaining oil from coal is part of a total energy concept in the German Democratic Republic. There are great opportunities for Australia to become self sufficient or independent producers of the oil which we badly need if our Federal and State governments co-operate and come together in a genuine and mutual arrangement. They could quickly put together all the available technical knowledge that is known to Germany and to Australia and the financial resources could be coopted to finance the project.

Without authority I proposed to the Minister of Science and Technology and to the Foreign Minister in the German Democratic Republic that it might be possible to form a consortium. This is being considered by the German Democratic Republic. Its contribution could be the provision of machinery and know-how. I advise this course as a matter of urgency because apart from the fact that a properly financed oil from coal project can be a viable proposition in itself, it opens up great opportunities for trade. The German Democratic Republic is anxious to be a successful tenderer for the provision of the equipment and technical know-how. It made this quite plain and quite clear to me in my discussions with several of its Ministers during my visit there.

I want this House and this Government to know that as a private member of this Parliament I was welcomed into serious discussions on the oil from coal requirement’s, and I promised to tell this Parliament of the discussions and of the goodwill which was generated because of the frankness of the discussions. As I was eager to encourage trade - on a reciprocal basis I had with me the Australian Trade Commissioner in East Berlin, Dr John Morey. I want to say here that Australia is fortunate in having a man of the quality and high integrity of this officer negotiating in every available avenue of trade. The purpose of my address to this Parliament is to alert the Government of the fact that there are great opportunities for developing potential trade. Obtaining oil from coal presents one very real avenue. The keenness of the Ministers of the German Democratic Republic to trade was kindled, but it was equally matched by

John Morey and myself to make it reciprocal trade. I pressed the German Democratic Republic to consider taking some of the great quantities of beef which are available in Australia, as well as our minerals. If by any chance this Government were objective enough to offer financial assistance to Victoria to get the oil project off the ground, these are some of the trading opportunities which could be successfully negotiated.

Whilst I was in the German Democratic Republic I was hosted as an official representative of this Parliament. I was given every courtesy and every opportunity to see for myself the process of a total energy concept. I believe that as a private member and as a back bench member of the Opposition I have done my part in continuing to foster interest in the production of oil from coal. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Australian Government and of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) to offer to assist the Victorian Government either by way of a direct financial grant or as a partner in a consortium to get this national project to a stage where the Victorian Government can negotiate with the suppliers for the necessary machinery and technical know-how.

If the Minister for Minerals and Energy wants to see Australia independent of imported oils and totally capable of producing the heavy oil now required for refinery processes he should heed what I am saying. I have told the House before that Australia will be in a precarious position in the event of any aggression. If we were realistic we would see that this proposition as pan of our defence effort. I appeal to the Government to realise the importance of trading opportunities which should be fostered between countries. We cannot afford to close our eyes to the opportunities which are available to us.

I can do no more than genuinely and seriously request that as a Federal Government, we assist Victoria to launch this oil from coal project so that our trade commissioners throughout the world can seize the opportunity to use that in trade negotiations. If anyone doubts my ability to present the facts to prove my argument, then let me say this. I have seen oU produced from coal. I have seen the different methods by which it can be produced. I have seen the residual by-products and the importance of them. Australia would be a very independent and self-sufficient country if she embarked upon the project. I hope that I shall see some positive moves before our opportunities are lost to us and our trade potential with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

page 466

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Meteorological Installations: Damage (Question No. 2567)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs upon notice:

  1. What meteorological installations located on or off the north-west coast were damaged by other than natural causes during the 2 years ended 30 September 1974.
  2. ) What have been the repair costs of this damage.
  3. Have any cases of damage been attributed to Indonesian fishermen; if so, what are the details.
Mr Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Meteorological installations damaged:
  1. No case of damage has been attributed directly to Indonesian fishermen. Apart from Indonesian fishermen, Australian oil drillers operate in the area and Japanese fishing trawlers pass through en route to fishing grounds further south.

Technical Education (Question No. 2728)

Mr Oldmeadow:
HOLT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What sum has the Victorian Government spent on capital works on technical schools from funds provided by the Australian Government during the last five years.
  2. What funds were provided to Victoria under the States Grants (Technical Training) Act by the Australian Government in the same period.
  3. What funds have been provided to Victoria under the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

It should be noted that the question refers to technical schools in part 1 of the question and technical colleges in parts 2 and 3.

1 ) In regard to the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Acts of 1968 and 1971 and the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Acts of 1 968 and 1 97 1 capital grants were made available for facilities in government secondary technical schools as well as government high schools but not for technical colleges. The State authorities are not required to provide detailed information on the amounts allocated to individual schools from the funds appropriated in the above Acts. Consequently, requests for information on the allocation of funds to particular schools must be directed to the Victorian Government.

Amounts provided under the States Grants (Technical Training) Acts during the last five years are as detailed:

  1. The amount provided under the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 for capital works during 1974-75 was $3,635,000.

Aid to Industry (Question No. 2766)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2681 of the Member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in part ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and during 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Crean:
Minister for Overseas Trade · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Reports (Question No. 2812)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2609 of the Member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by his Department by authorities for which he is responsible and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc, within his portfolio since 5 December 1972.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 2609.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

-I refer the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 2789 (Hansard, page 3546-7, of 5 June 1975).

Grants for Sport (Question No. 2854)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been given by way of assistance to groups and individuals for sporting purposes.
  2. What has been the total administrative cost by way of salary and wages, and office accommodation costs of officers of his Department who are involved in providing this assistance.
Mr Stewart:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1973-74, $371,209; 1974-75, $969, 108.
  2. Many officers of the Department of Tourism and Recreation are involved in varying degrees in providing assistance to groups and individuals for sporting purposes.

It is not possible to accurately apportion the cost of salaries and office accommodation which is directly or indirectly attributable to providing such assistance.

Departmental Advertising Budget (Question No. 2858)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. $21,000.
  2. Press advertising related to:

    1. Staff recruitment
    2. Availability of funds to eligible authors and publishers under the Public Lending Right scheme.
    3. Nominations for awards under the Australian Honours system.

(3)

  1. Expenditure on staff recruitment advertising for each of the last 5 years was:
  1. Expenditure was not incurred in previous years on advertising in relation to the availability of Public Lending Right funds.
  2. $9,756 was spent on advertising in relation to the Australian Honours system in 1974-75. No expenditure was incurred in earlier years.

Department of Minerals and Energy: Advertising (Question No. 2860)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Connor:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The 1 975-76 estimate for advertising is $ 1 9,000.
  2. ) The type of advertising undertaken by the Department is:

The advertising for staff for all Divisions of the Department in local, interstate, and where necessary, overseas newspapers and journals.

  1. 3 ) The expenditure figures for the previous five years are:

Pine Gap Joint Defence Space Research Facility (Question No. 2883)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he say in the House of Representatives on 3 April 1974 that there should not be foreign military bases, stations or installations in Australia, that the Government would honour agreements covering existing ones but that it did not favour the extension or prolongation of any of the existing agreements and that there would not be extensions or proliferations; if so, is this still the intention of the Government.
  2. If this is still the intention of the Government, when does he propose to give notice to the United States Government of termination of the agreement covering the Joint Defence Space Research facility at Pine Gap.
  3. If the foregoing is not proposed, what is the intention of the Government in relation to this facility.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The text and context of my answer to a question from the former Leader of the Opposition appear at page 905 of Hansard of 3 April 1974.
  2. The agreement (Treaty Series 1966, No. 17) can be terminated by a year’s notice given on or after 9 December 1975 by the government of Australia or the government of the United States. Neither government proposes to give notice of termination.
  3. The government intends that the facility should continue to be operated jointly in accordance with the agreement.

National Estate Program (Question No. 2691)

Mr Lamb:

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

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants are available through the Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

(1)-

  1. The National Estate Program does make nonrepayable grants available to non-government bodies to provide assistance to preserve important parts of the cultural and natural heritage of Australia. For further details on grants to individuals or nongovernment bodies I refer the honourable member to my reply to question No. 86 which appeared in the Hansard of 10 April 1975 at page 1559.
  2. , (c) and (d) no financial assistance is provided to individuals or non-government bodies in these ways.

    1. National Estate Grants. Advertisements calling for applications for these grants are placed in the national press each year and general publicity is sought on thenational estate through thenational press. The grants were also advertised in the handbook on Australian Government Assistance to Local Government Projects published by my Department. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate was circulated to interested persons and groups who made formal submissions to the Inquiry. Since then the Report of the Interim Committee has been circulated widely to conservation bodies and interested groups. During 1974-1975, 1136 applications for grants were received in my Department.

Urban Affairs Fellowships, when available, are advertised in the press and within tertiary institutions. Assistance made available in the other cases referred to were the result of separate application.

  1. My Department is producing a handbook on Australian Government financial assistance available to Local Governments, voluntary organisations and community groups, which 1 expect to become available at the end of August this year. This handbook is along the lines of the handbook produced last year by my Department on financial assistance from the Australian Government available to local government. While it will not encompass the entire range of matters raised by the Honourable Member in parts (1 ) and (2) of his question it is hoped that it will be of considerable help to bodies seeking information about available assistance.

Aborigines: Discussions with Ministers (Question No. 1829)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many Aborigines, not in the employ of the Government, have been brought to Canberra for discussions with the Minister or his predecessors since December 1 972.
  2. What has been the total cost of travel and sustenance associated with these visits.

Mr Les Johnson The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The information sought is not available as most visits of the nature referred to in the question were made before I became Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and details of them are not available to me.

Life Insurance Commissioner (Question No. 2250)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974 page 4763), has his 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 Examples qf Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 69- Life Insurance Commissioner, exercise of discretionary powers.
  3. 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.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. It has been the practice of the Life Insurance Commissioner to show in his annual reports to Parliament the names of companies which have been granted registration under section 19 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1973. In exercising his powers under that section the Commissioner is required to have regard to the particular matters specified in sub-section (2), including the question whether the company is, or is likely to be, able to meet its obligations. However, in view of the secrecy provision in section 57 of the Act, and the need to preserve confidence so as to ensure that there is no reduction in the flow of information from companies to the Commissioner, he does not publish details of the factors taken into account in exercising his powers under the Act.
  4. See (3) above. I also refer the honourable member to comments made by the Prime Minister in part (3) of his answer of 13 May 1975 to Question No. 2243 (Hansard page 2198).

Tariff Board Reports (Question No. 2291)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 Examples of Secrecy on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 64- Department of Trade assessments of Tariff Board reports.
  3. 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.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in Pan (3) of the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198).

Shirt Industry (Question No. 2292)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 65- Department of Trade survey of shirt industry.
  3. 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.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in Part (3) of the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2 198).

Urea (Question No. 2555)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. What imports of urea have been made into Australia since 1 July 1974.
  2. From what countries were these imports obtained, and at what prices.
  3. What subsidies have been paid in respect of these imports.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Australian imports of Urea containing in the dry state more than 45 per cent by weight of nitrogen: 10 Months to April 1975
  1. The Bureau of Customs, Department of Police and Customs has provided the following information:

In the period 1st July, 1974 to 3 1st May 1975 subsidies were paid on imports in respect to the period 1st July 1974 to 30th April 1975. A total of $155,746 was paid on 4 300 000 kgs of urea. The remaining imports were not eligible for subsidy.

Whaling (Question No. 2571)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. What species of whales are being harvested in Australian waters by Australian based whalers.
  2. How many whales were killed during each of the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974.
  3. Is Australia observing the terms of the International Whaling Commission.
  4. Is Australia satisfied that the International Whaling Commission is effectively protecting endangered species of the whale; if not, what action is proposed by the Government.

Mr Berinson the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The only species harvested in Australian Waters by Australian based whalers is the Sperm Whale (Physeter catodon)
  1. Yes. The responsibility for the Whaling Act and for Australian participation in the International Whaling Commission lies with my colleague the Minister for Agriculture and I suggest you direct any further enquiries on this aspect to him.
  2. The International Whaling Commission has given complete protection to four whale species (the Right, Grey, Blue and Humpback Whales) and has set quotas on the number of whales that can be harvested from stocks of other species. At the 1975 meeting of the Commission an Australian proposal designed to improve the conservation of whales was included in the Schedule of the International Whaling Convention. The Australian quota was reduced by 252 to 1145.

Because we are dealing with species of wide ranging marine animals, whose biology is little known, it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of any protection measures undertaken. The Australian Advisory Committee on the Environment is currently reviewing Australian participation in whaling.

Department of the Environment: Staff (Question No. 2576)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many public servants were employed in the Department of the Environment and Conservation and agencies responsible to the Department as at 30 June 1973 and 30 June 1974.
  2. How many does he anticipate will be employed by his Department as at 30 June 1975.
  3. Will he provide details of the levels of the public servants currently employed in the Department.
Mr Berinson:
Minister for Environment · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 30 June 1973-93 employed; 30 June 1974-160 employed.
  2. Employment at 30 June 1975-231.
  3. Details of the levels of public servants employed at 30 June 1975 were:

First Division: 1- Secretary.

Second Division: Level 4-1; Level 3-3; Level 2-2; Level 1-11.

Third Division: Clerk Class 10-18; Clerk Class 9-2; Clerk Class 8-37; Clerk Class 7-4; Clerk Class 6-20; Clerk Class 5-5; Clerk Class 4-16; Clerk Class 2/3-5; Clerk Class 1-6; Graduate Clerks 9; Exempt Employees- = Nil; Library Officer Grade 2- 1 .

Fourth Division: Senior Technical Officer Grade 1 - 1; Clerical Assistant Grade 7-1; Clerical Assistant Grade 6-1; Clerical Assistant Grade 5-2; Clerical Assistant Grade 4-4; Clerical Assistant Grade 3-11; Clerical Assistant Grade 2-5; Clerical Assistant Grade 1-12; Data Processing Officer Grade 2-1; Personal Secretary- 1; Typist Supervisor Grade 2-1; Steno-Secretary Grade 2-5; Steno-Secretary Grade 1-15; Typist Grade 2-2; Typist Grade 1-28.

Petrol (Question No. 2577)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the price of petrol at the bowser in each of the capital cities as at 2 December 1972.
  2. What was the price of petrol at the bowser in Alice Springs, Birdsville, Mt Isa, Bourke, Launceston, Mildura and Cummins at the same date.
  3. What is the price of petrol at the bowser now in each of the above places.
  4. What has been the amount of increase due to (a) excise duty, (b) removal of the petrol equalisation scheme and (c) increases granted to wholesalers and retailers to cover increased labour and capital costs.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (3) The Department of Minerals and Energy has provided the following information in relation to the price of petrol at the bowser as recommended by oil distribution companies in each of the State capital cities as at 2 December 1972 and 19 June 1975.

(4)-

  1. Excise duty on motor spirit was increased by 5 cents per gallon m the 1973-74 Budget
  2. Immediately prior to the withdrawal of the petroleum products subsidy scheme from 1 August 1974, the subsidy per gallon of motor spirit payable under the scheme at the places mentioned was as follows:
  1. I am advised by the Office of the Prices Justification Tribunal that the wholesale prices applicable to petrol in State capital cities prior to October 1974, and the prices the Tribunal has most recently indicated it considers justified, are as follows:

Wholesale price per gallon: cents

It is not possible to separate that pan of the increase which relates specifically to increased labour and capital costs.

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Reports (Question No. 2609)

Mi* Kerin asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces etc, within his portfolio since 5 December 1 972.

Which of those reports have not been published, and when does he expect them to be published.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

-I refer the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 2586 (Hansard page 3545 5 June 1975). I would also draw the honourable member’s attention to the technical reports listed in the annual reports of the defence science establishments, which have been tabled in Parliament each year by my predecessors in this office. Recently these establishments were made the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Defence.

Medical and Surgical Aids and Appliances (Question No. 2623)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Who are the representatives, and from which Departments do they come, who make up the Working Party on Medical and Surgical Aids and Appliances.
  2. What reports and proposals have been prepared by this Working Party and what reports and proposals are still under consideration.
  3. Will all of these reports be made public when completed.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Working Party on Medical and Surgical Aids and Appliances has a membership of nine comprising six senior officers of the Department of Health (one of whom is Chairman), two of the Department of Social Security and one of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. Additional members are co-opted whenever special expertise is required.
  2. The Working Party has prepared reports on provision of stoma appliances, home dialysis equipment, artificial limbs and hearing aids.

Recommendations were made by the Working Party in 1973 for abolition of the $10 hiring charge and provision of batteries free of charge to beneficiaries of Government hearing aid schemes.

Reports are currently being prepared on provision of the following aids and appliances: aids to daily living (including wheelchairs, surgical footwear, orthoses and miscellaneous personal aids); electrolarynxes oxygen, oxygen equipment and various nebulizers; insulin injection equipment; spectacles and other ophthalmic appliances.

A report is also being prepared on implementation of the recommendation in the report of the National Inquiry into Rehabilitation and Compensation in Australia (the Woodhouse Inquiry) for the establishment of aid display centres.

It is intended that the Working Party will eventually investigate the provision of most medical and surgical aids and appliances. Items scheduled for investigation include medical wigs, various protheses such as artificial breast forms, dressings and contraceptive devices. Other items may be added as they are brought to the Working Party’s attention.

  1. It is intended to make the Working Party’s reports public unless there are reasons to protect private industry from dislocation before negotiations have been completed with them or other cogent and legitimate reasons to delay publication.

Aid to Industry (Question No. 2681)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants are available through the Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments, and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There are four relevant schemes administered through the Department of Overseas Trade, namely:

    1. a ) Export Market Development Grants.
    2. Revaluation Adjustment Assistance to Secondary Industry.
    3. Pre-investment Feasibility Study Fund.
    4. Flour Export Promotion Trust Fund.
  2. The schemes were announced in Parliament, advised in the Australian Government Gazette and in major newspapers, were the subject of ministerial Press releases and the subject of articles in Departmental publications distributed throughout Australia. In addition a series of seminars was held during April and May 197S in all State capitals and some regional centres to publicise and explain the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to exporters. The latter scheme is also set out in more detail in an explanatory booklet issued in May 1975 entitled ‘Export Market Development Grants- A Guide to Available Benefits’.
  3. The honourable member is referred to part (3) of the answer provided by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, in answer to question number 2691.

Geriatrics and the Frail Aged (Question No. 2275)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 41- Report on Geriatrics including the Frail Aged.
  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 Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. The paper referred to forms pan of a report prepared in 1966 by a departmental working party on benefits available at that time under the National Health Act. It is an outdated report and, indeed, only one copy is known to be in existence. Nonetheless, if the honourable member so desires, I will make this copy available for his perusal.

Air Safety (Question No. 2341)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article entitled Death in the Air appearing in Pix/ People issue of 12 February 1 975 or thereabouts, written by Bill Wells.
  2. If so, are the facts detailed in that article dealing with air safety essentially as stated.
  3. If they are not as stated, what action has been taken, and when, by him or his Department, to ensure that public apprehension is not created.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The article mentioned had not previously been drawn to my attention, nor to the attention of relevant officers of the Department of Transport.
  2. The article distorts many of the facts and is in error in respect of others.
  3. As the matter came neither to my attention nor that of relevant officers of the Department of Transport in a period exceeding two months after publication it is reasonable to assume that the article was not a source of substantial public apprehension. In view of this lack of evidence of public apprehension attributable to it, I see little merit in now giving further recognition to the article by way of a public statement of its errors and inaccuracies.

Department of Health (Question No. 2393)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have any management consultant firms been employed by his Department or any commissions or corporations responsible to him since December 1972.
  2. If so, what were the firms, what was their job, and what was the cost involved.
  3. If not, is it considered that the effectiveness of the Department or any of the commissions or corporations could be increased by such an investigation.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission employed Community Systems Foundation to prepare a paper reviewing literature on hospital efficiency and staff utilisation. The cost involved was $2,400. The Commission also employed Llewelyn-Davies, Weeks, Forestier, Walker and Bor to prepare a paper on Indices for Hospital Planning at a cost of $7,000.
  3. Not applicable.

Belconnen Health Complex (Question No. 2439)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the proposed A.C.T. hospital plan, referred to in the answer to question No. 1786, which the architectural firm of Llewellyn Davies was asked to review.
  2. What is the planned size of the hospital, when will construction begin, and what is the estimated date of completion.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Belconnen Health Complex.
    1. The planned size of the hospital is800 beds- to be completed in two stages, each of 400 beds.
    2. Early planning indicates the desirability of the construction of Stage 1 being in 1978-79 with a completion date of late 1983.

The completion date of the overall project has not yet been determined.

Darwin Cyclone Relief Trust Fund (Question No. 2519)

Mr Calder:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a monthly report should be tabled in the Parliament concerning the assets, receipts and payments of the Darwin Cyclone Relief Trust Fund.
  2. If so, when will these reports be so tabled, and why have the reports not been tabled to date.
Dr Patterson:
Minister for Northern Australia · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. The Trust Deed under which the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Fund is set up requires the Chairman of the Trust to report each month in writing to Parliament, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and the Corporation of the City of Darwin.
  2. The March/April Reports have already been submitted, the May Report is being prepared for printing and the June Report has been written.

Quarantine (Question No. 2563)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health,’ upon notice:

What are the estimated additional receipts in a full year for the new fees and charges in respect of quarantine services prescribed by Statutory Rule No. 29 of 1975.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The additional receipts for a full year in respect of increases in plant quarantine charges are estimated to be $400,000.

Rheumatism (Question No. 2622)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of the Australian population is estimated to suffer from rheumatic and associated complaints.
  2. What is the basis for this estimate.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Bureau of Statistics publication ‘Chronic Illness, Injuries and Impairments, May 1 974 (Preliminary Statement)’ shows the incidence of rheumatoid and allied conditions to be 1 male and 3 females per 1000 population and of osteoarthritis 4 males and 5 females per 1000 population in Australia. It also estimates that approximately 9800 males and 10 700 females suffer from other unspecified rheumatic conditions.

Unemployment (Question No. 2650)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration upon notice:

  1. Did the Department of Labor and Immigration ask the Bureau of Statistics to conduct a survey in October 1974 of persons registered as unemployed.
  2. If so, was this survey conducted on the basis that it was confidential to the Bureau and/or the Department of Labor and Immigration.
  3. Has the Minister consulted with the Minister for Social Security on what use may be made of the survey.
  4. If so, what was the result of these consultations.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. As a result of a recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) Statistics my Department asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January 1974 to conduct a survey of a sample of persons registered as unemployed. Due to the commitments of the Bureau, the survey could not be conducted until the week commencing 30.9.74.
  2. The purpose of the survey, which was conducted at a sample of addresses selected from CES records, was to identify differences between the Bureau’s unemployment statistics and the CES figures. In accordance with Bureau policy concerning the confidentiality of information obtained in its collections, only aggregate estimates were supplied to my Department, neither the names of individuals included in the survey nor any particulars about them being provided. At all stages it was intended that the results of the survey, except for figures subject to sampling variability too high for most practical uses, would be published by the Department of Labor and Immigration. A report along these lines is now being prepared by the Department and I will arrange for it to be released as soon as it becomes available.
  3. and (4) The Department of Social Security was advised of the intention to conduct the survey and discussions were held with that Department on the question of extending it to encompass details of registrants in receipt of Unemployment Benefits. These discussions revealed that there would have been particular problems involved in ensuring the confidentiality of survey information and at the same time producing worthwhile results. Following completion of the survey the Minister for Social Security was advised of the results and the matter was further considered but, as the individual records from the survey had been destroyed by the Commonwealth Statistician, no action could be taken.

ABC Guest of Honour Programs (Question No. 2743)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who selects the guests of honour for ABC broadcasts on Sunday nights.
  2. On what principle is the selection made.
  3. Are the scripts seen or approved by any members or officers of the Commission before broadcast; if so, by whom.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Day to day selection of speakers for the program rests with the producer who has a responsibility to the Director of the Radio Special Projects Department. The Director in turn has responsibility to the Assistant General Manager (Radio).
  2. The guiding principle behind selection is that the potential ‘Guest of Honour’ is a person who through his or her background is able to make some stimulating, thoughtprovoking and informed contribution to the more important public issues.
  3. Yes. Final approval before broadcast is given by the Director of the Radio Special Projects Depanment.

Lateline Radio Program (Question No. 2751)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. What is the ABC budget allocation for the Lateline radio program.
  2. Who are the producers of the program.
  3. Does the ABC check to ensure that balanced programs are produced.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no separate budget allocation for Lateline. It is one of a number of programs produced by the Radio Special Projects Depanment, drawing on that Department’s artists’ fees allocation and its staff resources.
  2. The program is produced by staff of the Radio Special Projects Depanment, who vary from time to time.
  3. Yes.

Alcoholic Beverages: Labelling (Question No. 2756)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When will the National Health and Medical Research Council refer to the Food Standards Committee the question of labelling alcohol beverage containers with the alcohol content of the beverage contained therein.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

This matter was referred to the Food Standards Committee in August 1974.

The Committee has considered the technical problems involved, and has consulted with both consumer and industry interests.

The recommendations of the Food Standards Committee have now been referred to the Standing Committee on the Health Problems of Alcohol for consideration within the broader sociological context.

Beer (Question No. 2758)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have any requests been received from the National Health and Medical Research Council for an excise differential to encourage the production of a lower alcohol content beer.
  2. ) If so, what action has been taken on the request.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The National Health and Medical Research Council Health Problems of Alcohol (Reference) Committee has recommended that beers should be subject to an excise differential which favours those with a low alcohol content I have recently sent a copy pf this recommendation to my colleague the Minister for Police and Customs requesting him to consider this matter and to let me have his views.

Department of Housing and Construction: Advertising Budget (Question No. 2877)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Depanment for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. $180,000.
  2. Advertising undertaken by the Depanment relates to:

    1. tenders and quotations; and
    2. filling of vacant staff positions.
  3. 1970-71- $178,697; 197 1-72-$ 118,761; 1972-73- $137,665; 1973-74- $157,367; 1974-75-$ 156,822.

Department of Special Minister of State (Question No. 1443)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from the Department of the Special Minister of State for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided me with the following answer

  1. 1 ) I am advised by my Department that only one organisation has to date requested financial assistance of this kind. I am informed that on 23 March 1973 the Australian Red Cross Society which has its National Headquarters in Melbourne sought Australian Government assistance for the development of an Information Centre which has been established at the Society’s National Headquarters.
  2. The Australian Government already provides substantial assistance ($140,500-1974-75) to the Red Cross through grants to the Blood Transfusion Service and, because of the large number of requests for assistance to community projects generally, this request was, after careful and detailed consideration, declined on 20 July 1973.

I am advised that this information was conveyed to the honourable member by Senator Willesee, as acting Special Minister of State, in a letter dated 3 1 December 1 974.

Department of the Capital Territory: Publications (Question No. 2123)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

When will he answer my Question No. 1596 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

My answer to Question No. 1596 appeared in Hansard (pages 3684-3686) on 9 July 1 975.

Jervis Bay Plant: Site Selection Surveys (Question No. 2261)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 12- Site selection surveys for Jervis Bay plant.
  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.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to part (3) of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198

Jervis Bay Plant: Emission Standards Requirements (Question No. 2262)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his 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 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 13- Emission standards requirements in Jervis Bay plant tenders.
  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.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The requirements are set out in ‘Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Station- Invitation to Tender on Nuclear Steam Supply System and Related Services’ dated 28 February 1970, which document was sent to parties expressing an interest in tendering. This document is available for public examination.

Jervis Bay: Electricity Costs (Question No. 2263)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, 5 December 1 974, page 4763 ), has his 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 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 14- Atomic Energy Commission studies on costs of electricity at Jervis Bay.
  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.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to part (3) of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198).

Shire of Belmont: Resumption of Land (Question No. 2351)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he received a submission from the Shire of Belmont requesting the release by the Government of 18 acres of land resumed byitin 1946.
  2. If so, what is the present position in thus matter.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Shire of Belmont first sought the return of the land referred to in 1932 for recreation purposes and again sought it in 1969 for the purposes of providing aged persons homes. In February 1973 the land which was then valued at $238,000 was offered to the Shire for $184,000. This price was not acceptable to the Shire which sought an unspecified but substantially reduced price.
  2. The Australian Minister for Housing and Construction and the former Western Australian Minister for Housing announced in March 1974 a proposal to develop the land as a fully co-operative housing venture involving the Australian and Western Australian Governments and the Shire of Belmont. It is envisaged that areas will be used for Defence Service housing, family housing and aged persons homes. There has been continual liaison between the two Governments to ensure the success of this project and investigations are continuing to determine the most suitable development having regard to community needs and the economics of the proposal.

Government Land in Broadmeadows (Question No. 2490)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the intended use of land in Camp Road, Broadmeadows, previously occupied by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, still as stated in the answer to Question No. 5270(Hansard, 22 March 1972, page 107 1 ).
  2. ) If the use is to be different, what are the details.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The future use of the Australian Government land in Camp Road, Broadmeadows is under investigation. The Department of Defence is re-examining its requirements and the extent of other Australian Government requirements is being determined.

Department of Special Minister of State (Question No. 2689)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants are available through the Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other departments, and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Financial assistance by means of non-repayable grants is made available to non-governmental bodies in the form of grants towards the cost of holding approved international conferences in Australia and towards the cost of presenting cases in the consumer interest at Prices Justification Tribunal.

In addition my Department administers a small number of grants-in-aid to organisations whose activities relate to my portfolio responsibilities.

  1. Support for international conferences in Australia and grants to national organisations are listed under the functions of the Department of the Special Minister of State in the Australian Government Directory.

The Prime Minister’s Press Statement No. 222 of 10 April 1974 outlines the circumstances under which assistance may be provided to parties in Prices Justification Tribunal inquiries.

  1. My colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development has agreed to cover this matter in his response to a similar Question (No. 2691) asked of him by the honourable member, also on 4 June 1975.

Provisional Revolutionary Government in Saigon: Commodity Aid (Question No. 2705)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. What aid has been committed to date to the recently installed (Provisional) Revolutionary Government in Saigon.
  2. For what purposes has this aid been given, and how will it be dispersed.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Following the receipt of a request from the Provisional Revolutionary Government the Government has offered commodities to the value, including freight, of $2. 8m. The Australian Embassy in Hanoi is at present consulting with representatives of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on the composition of this commodity package. It is likely that food will be the principal item.
  2. The commodity package is being given for humanitarian purposes. The Provisional Revolutionary Government will be responsible for its distribution.

Overseas Building Projects (Question No. 2718)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. What overseas building projects relevant to the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs are currently underway.
  2. What is the estimated cost of each project.
  3. What projects have been completed in the last 2 years and what was the cost in each case.
  4. What projects are proposed for the next 2 years and what is the estimated cost in each case.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The following overseas building projects sponsored by the Overseas Property Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs are at present under construction:
  1. The following overseas building projects were completed in the two financial years 1 973-74 and 1 974-75.
  1. Commencement of projects over the next 2 years will depend upon a number of factors, particularly the availability of funds and a continuing review of priorities. However, provision has been made for the following important projects to begin in 1 975-76:

Sheep: Exports (Question No. 2553)

Mr Bungey:

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

  1. How many live sheep have been shipped from Australia in the last 5 years.
  2. How many of these were (a) Merino rams, (b) Merino wethers, (c) vasectomised Merino rams and (d) Merino ewes.
  3. How many were loaded at each Australian port
  4. What were the pons of destination.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 4 784 600
  2. (a) 171

    1. 235 165 officially described and recorded as Merino wethers . In addition, a large but unknown percentage of sheep in shipments officially described and recorded as ‘mixed wethers ‘ would have been merino wethers.
    2. 3449
    3. 493
  1. Forts of destination are not always recorded. However, most of the countries, listed below, which import live sheep use only one port of entry. The countries of destination were:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 August 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750821_reps_29_hor96/>.