House of Representatives
15 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

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

page 2099

PETITIONS

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

Cadet Corps

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 their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters), the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Drury, Mr Hodges, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Fraser Island

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

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

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

That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Chipp, Mr Lamb, Mr Morris and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Income Tax

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would-

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles Jones, Mr Morris and Mr Whan.

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. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and 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 Bungey, Mr Connolly and Mr Macphee. 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 1973.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Connolly. 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. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  2. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  3. Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

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,

Petition received. by Mr Macphee. Petition received.

Income Tax

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

That the 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 petitions 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,

Petition received. by Mr Connolly. 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,

Petition received. by Mr Corbett. Petition 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 respectively showeth: That we wish to protest most vigorously at respectively 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 Katter Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if a system of personal income tax was introduced allowing State Governments the powers to vary personal income tax rates, this would tend to lead to State Governments raising personal income taxes rather than lowering them;

That since the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are Territories, and not States, laws allowing State Governments to vary personal income taxes would not apply in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

That this would lead to Australian Citizens living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States;

That this would also lead to Members of the House of Representatives and Senators paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States since Members of the House of Representatives and Senators pay personal income taxes as though they were living in the Australian Capital Territory;

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal income taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia will be retained.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Keogh. Petition received.

Taxation: Specific Purpose Payments

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:

  1. There have been criticisms recently of the rate at which Specific Purpose Payments to the State Governments have been increasing. It now appears that there are proposals to cut back the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments.
  2. Your Petitioners believe that the importance of Specific Purpose Payments to the States as a proportion of total funds available to State Governments has been exaggerated. In 1975-76 more than half (53 per cent) of the funds available to the States from Australian Government payments and Loan Council programs will remain untied for use by the States as they see fit. Further, the Australian Government’s

Specific Purpose assistance in 1974-75 was estimated to have amounted to only about 29 per cent of the total funds available to the States (making allowance for funds available from the States’ own revenue sources). This seems scarcely the ‘dominating’ influence that some critics of Special Purpose Payments have referred to.

  1. It is true that Specific Purpose Payments have been growing recently at a faster rate than general revenue funds. This is because of the Australian Government’s policy of overcoming 23 years of neglect in specific areas. Specific Purpose Grants have grown for such purposes as the sewerage program, area improvement programs, loan councils, growth centres, transport, education and health. If the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments is cut back the rate of expansion of these programs will have to be curtailed. Agreements reached with the States after protracted negotiations would have to be redrawn. Existing legislation covering the programs would have to be amended.
  2. It is true that in 1975-76 Specific Purpose Payments to the States are expected to grow at a faster rate (35 per cent) than increases in General Purpose Grants (27 per cent). However, in interpreting these figures allowance should be made for the impact on Specific Purpose Payments as a result of the introduction of Medibank. In 1 975-76, payment to the States for the running costs of public hospitals under Medibank are estimated at $700m. This will have the effect of providing very substantial, and continuing, relief to the States’ Budgets which, in fact, is equivalent to providing additional General Purpose assistance to the States for use as they see fit.
  3. It is proposed that some funds presently provided under Specific Purpose assistance could be transferred to the General Purpose assistance item. There are, however, immense practical problems of transferring funds from such programs as education to General Revenue assistance. Your Petitioners believe that State Governments will not welcome the uncertainty that this vague approach would lead to.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals to cut back the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments will not be introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Keogh. Petition received.

Taxation: Local Government Finance

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so as to provide local government with a fixed share of personal income tax, there would be certain undesirable consequences. For example:

  1. there is a danger that the inflexibility in such a system would lead to a reduced share of funds for local governments in time;
  2. b) the proportion of income tax collections which would be provided to local governments would be likely to be small;
  3. the need for a more complicated bureaucratic structure than exists at present to administer the allocation of funds; it is suggested that six additional grants commissions would be established, which would inevitably lead to an expansion of the bureaucratic staff involved and increased difficulty for local government councils in keeping in touch with bureaucratic requirements;
  4. the amount of funds available to local governments would fluctuate in an arbitrary manner when the Australian Government altered income tax schedules for reasons of overall economic management; local governments could easily find that available funds dropped when the need for funds rose, and further, local governments would have no notice of these arbitrary changes of total income tax funds available.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals to provide local government councils with a fixed share of total personal income tax will not be introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Keogh. Petition received.

Income Tax

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:

  1. It has been suggested recently that the regular wrangling between the Australian Government and the various State Governments would be greatly reduced if the State Governments were given access to part of the Australian Government’s income tax powers. It has been claimed that the States would no longer be forced to approach the Australian Government “cap in hand”. Your petitioners, however, believe that any proposals to hand over income tax powers to State Governments in Australia would not eliminate disagreement over financial matters between the Australian Government and the State Governments, but would just move the focus of disagreement from general revenue grants to the income tax system.

  2. Your petitioners believe that the potential area for dispute under a personal income tax system partially under the control of the Australian Government and partially under the control of the State Governments is quite wide. Examples of probable areas of dispute include:

    1. Indexation of income tax would reduce the rate of growth of income tax, which would be resisted by the States
    2. Similar problems could arise from changes in the shape of the income tax rate scale, or the imposition of separate levies for one reason or another (health levies, Woodhouse Proposals, etc.).
    3. Since almost any proposals to change the income tax system might be seen as a potential threat to their revenue by the States, resistance to income tax reforms (e.g. introduction of a guaranteed minimum income scheme) could be strengthened.
    4. Since it is likely that the various State Governments would want to make a series of alterations to the tax system over time, it is likely that there would be a drift towards greater complexity- this would probably be opposed by the Australian Government, leading to disputes between the Australian Government, and the States.
  3. Your petitioners believe that in addition to failing to bring about any improvement in Australian GovernmentState Government financial relations, a transfer of any personal income tax powers to State Governments would have various disadvantages, including the introduction of a more complicated after-tax wage structure in Australia, the development of numerous marginal income tax scales throughout Australia, further difficulties in the system of industrial relations, and new problems for the Australian Government in the management of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Keogh. Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  2. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes; since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependency on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;
  3. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates; this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  4. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Keogh. Petition received.

Income Tax

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Keogh. Petition received.

Shire of South Gippsland

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

  1. The Rural economy of the Shire of South Gippsland is severely disadvantaged by the current prices being paid for cattle;
  2. The Council of the Shire of South Gippsland is extremely concerned with the financial crisis which is rapidly overtaking its finances;
  3. Non-replacement of outdoor staff has been introduced since early 1974 because of the effective reduction in funds for road maintenance and construction caused by inflation;
  4. Continually increasing wages and salaries as a result of indexation cannot continue to be passed on to the ratepayer.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to- grant to the Shire of South Gippsland an amount of $200,000 to enable it to provide the same standard of service it provided in 1972; increase this grant annually in line with the inflation rate.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Nixon. Petition received.

The Prime Minister

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

  1. That your petitioners are suffering from unemployment or other distressing circumstances.
  2. That your petitioners have reason to believe that their current sufferings are not due to any fault of their own, but arise from the disastrous policies pursued by the present Commonwealth Government.
  3. That your petitioners believe that there can be no relief from the sufferings which afflict them in common with so many other Australian citizens until the present Government is replaced by another whose policies will be different and directed to the advantage of the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will withdraw its confidence from the present Prime Minister, in order that there may be a speedy election and that the people of Australia may be given their proper opportunity to pass judgment on the Government responsible for the present level of unemployment and other national losses.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Wentworth. Petition received.

page 2103

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2103

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. I repeat the question I asked him yesterday. Will he resign now? Will he resign decently in the interests of the political health of Australia?

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

– I will not relieve the honourable gentleman of the odium which will flow from any reprehensible conduct which he aids and abets his colleagues in the Senate in perpetrating. I notice a change in tone in the newspaper editorials today. There is still no newspaper which is prepared to say that the Senate should reject the Budget. It has never happened. It would be extraordinary; in fact it would be unprecedented and it would be reprehensible. No newspaper will support any idea that the Senate should reject a budget, but they now suggest that I should relieve the Leader of the Opposition of his dilemma; that I should put him out of his misery by having a double dissolution. I am sorry. This is a matter which he will have to solve himself. He will have to tell his colleagues to do the unspeakable, the unprecedented, the reprehensible, of rejecting a Budget. If a Budget is rejected there is very likely to be an election of one sort or another. It would of course be quite improper for me to foretell the advice which I would tender to the Governor-General in those reprehensible and extraordinary circumstances.

page 2103

QUESTION

WORLD ECONOMIC RECESSION

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Treasurer seen reports of a recent speech by the SecretaryGeneral of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Mr van Lennup, at a meeting of the Council of Europe which I attended along with the honourable member for North Sydney representing this Parliament, in which Mr van Lennup said that the economies of the Western industrialised nations were recovering from the present severe international recession at a much slower rate than earlier forecasts suggested? Does the Treasurer share Mr van Lennup ‘s concern? What implication does it have for the Australian economy if the international economic recession is prolonged?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am aware of Mr van Lennup ‘s recent statements. I do feel some concern at the rate at which the OECD has so regularly been required, in the light of experience, to review its forecasts of the performance of the economies of industrialised nations for this calendar year. Certainly the most recent comments of Mr van Lennup result in a significant downward revision of the rate of growth that has taken place or of the rate of recovery which was expected in those industrialised nations. For instance, in July, only a few months ago, Mr van Lennup expected that the United States economy would recover at a faster rate than he presently anticipates; that Japan would be showing more rapid recovery; that France certainly would be picking up- he has now reviewed that in a substantial way. Germany, which he thought would show a loss of growth of about 2 per cent, according to his latest revision shows a loss of growth of about 4 per cent. The average for the OECD countries is a loss of growth, on the latest estimates, of 2.4 per cent compared with about 1.75 per cent in July.

Australia fares quite well by these international comparisons and has consistently in the OECD reports which are available for consultation and comparison by any of the narrow, suspicious minds that may just happen to abound at the Opposition desks. Mr van Lennup said in his latest statement that the prospects for European economies are viewed less optimistically than in July. He went on to say that decline in real output in major European economies in 1975 was much steeper- 6 per cent in annual rates- than estimated in July, then 2 per cent. Of equal concern are the latest reports on the performance of the Japanese economy, the most notable revisions being on the previous official forecast of last January which anticipated a rate of recovery of 4 per cent. This has now been revised to about 2.2 per cent in terms of gross national product growth.

These things have significant implications for Australia. We are substantially involved in world trade. The level of activity in the Australian economy is very much influenced by the level of activity in world trade, by the health that is existing in the international trade situation. The fact that the world recovery is so sluggish, that the sluggishness has been over a fairly extended period and that there is every indication that extended period of sluggishness will continue for some time to come yet, does cause me some concern. We cannot divorce ourselves from international economic influences, as members of the Opposition would like to suggest. One of the experiences I had at the recent International Monetary Fund conference was to have my own impressions clearly reinforced by the statements of the international finance Ministers, all of whom stressed the complexities and the difficulties and the challenges which are involved in the current international economic situation; all of whom spoke of recoveries in the industrialised nations being required of necessity if we want to maintain strength in the international economy and not see a relapse in the level of inflation; ail of whom stressed in that light the need for gradual recovery. The framework of the Australian Budget which I recently announced has been constructed in that light and fulfils those requirements.

There is evidence, as I have said before, that the recovery we have been seeking is showing up. It is weak at this stage, as is understandable at this very early point of recovery, but nonetheless the evidence is there. It is remarkable that one of the most encouraging signs -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister’s reply is becoming very long.

Mr HAYDEN:

– One of the most encouraging signs is that we are winning, at this point anyway, on the most difficult and potentially damaging front in economic management, and that is on the wages front. We have nothing but protests from the Opposition, which for some curious reason through its economic spokesman says that it would rather have a lower deficit caused by greater tax collections as a result of a much more difficult rate of increase in wages. That is a very perplexing approach to economic management.

page 2104

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Prime Minister yet become aware of the fact that the people of Australia have lost confidence and trust in him and his crumbling Government? Does he know that the great majority of Australians are sick and tired of the smell of scandal that hangs around his Government, and that they no longer believe that he and his Government are capable of governing or fit to govern? I again ask the Prime Minister: Will he do the decent thing and resign -

Government supporters- Ha, ha!

Mr ANTHONY:

-Listen to them laugh-the laugh of somebody in the graveyard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the right honourable gentleman wants to make a speech he can wait until after question time. If he wants to ask a question, I suggest that he do so.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I again ask the Prime Minister: Will he do the decent thing and resign and allow the Australian people to make a judgment as to who should govern?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government should be that party or parties with a majority in the House of Representatives. The Australian Labor Party has a majority in the House of Representatives. It secured such a majority in 1972; it again secured such a majority in 1974, and I have confidence that the next time there is an election for the House of Representatives it will again have that majority. I would remind honourable gentlemen that the writs for an election for the House of Representatives are issued by the GovernorGeneralinCouncil, in other words by the Government. The Government must advise the Governor-General to issue writs for a House of Representatives election no later than 3 years after the House first sat following the last election. This House first sat on 9 July 1974. Accordingly, it will be my duty to tender advice to the Governor-General to issue writs for -a House of Representatives election before 9 July 1977.

The right honourable gentleman comes forward with some very lofty moralistic attitudes. His Party, of course, has been even worse than the Liberal Party in promoting breaches of parliamentary and democratic conventions. His was the only Party in this Parliament, and he would be one of the very few persons in this Parliament, to have abetted the corruption of the Senate by appointing to casual vacancies persons who do not belong to the Party of the former senator. I am glad to see that the Liberal Federal Council last Sunday strongly endorsed the convention that when there is a casual vacancy in the Senate the vacancy should be filled by a person belonging to the same Party as that which the former senator supported. The Liberal Federal Council so resolved last Sunday. It was correct in doing so.

If this convention had not been breached, if it had not been broken, more recently by the Country Party Premier of Queensland, despite the votes in the Queensland Parliament of the Deputy Premier- the Leader of the Liberal Party- and the Liberal Ministers, and if it had not also been broken earlier by the Premier of New South Wales, whose Party at the top level has now repudiated him on the issue, then there would be two more Labor senators in the Senate.

Furthermore, I would recall to honourable gentlemen that the last election for the Senate, the date of which was determined by the Federal Government since it was a double dissolution, more votes were received by the Labor candidates than by the candidates of all other parties combined. As the honourable member for Moreton has said, the Senate is now a tainted Senate. One cannot take seriously the vote of a body of which 2 members were appointed- not electedand of which another member, who was elected as an independent, chose to join a political party. It is bogus at this moment and it may be that the public will have the opportunity to half correct this situation.

At all events, the right honourable Leader of the National Country Party should be the last person in public life to pontificate on parliamentary proprieties or practices. One need only recall the attitude which his Party took in government to the currency and to national resources to see how horrific and how horrendous any alternative Government would be now. The previous Leader of the Opposition was destroyed because he took the advice of the continuing Leader of the National Country Party. I believe that if. the present Leader of the Opposition takes the advice of the Leader of the National Country Party he will come to the same bad end. Hamlet took a long time to make up his mind but he did not get the throne.

page 2105

QUESTION

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr FRY:

– Has the Minister for Urban and Regional Development seen reports of the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party that the National Capital Development Commission has failed to pay its accounts to contractors in Canberra? Will the Minister inform the House whether the NCDC can in fact meet its commitments?

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

– I have seen the report and I have also examined a transcript of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party. I have been in touch with the National Capital Development Commission and it has informed me that it has been meeting contracts and has been paying accounts promptly this year. From 1 July until this time it has paid $67m. In the last week of September claims for $5m came in and they were paid by 3 October. One contractor sought a payment on 24 September of $900,000 and was paid on 3 October. Another application for $884,000 was made on 29 September and again that was paid on 3 October. The Commission has even gone to the extent of assisting some contractors by paying them on fortnightly terms instead of monthly payments.

The false and irresponsible allegation which was made by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party shows the irresponsibility of some Opposition members. We know that there are some adventurers on that side who want to change the Government and want to stop Supply. They must realise that by doing so agencies such as the National Capital Development Commission will not be able to pay claims under their contracts for very long and that any other major contractor with whom the Australian Government enters into a contract will not have his payments met. The adventurers who are behind the Leader of the Opposition, such as the Leader of the National Country Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party and his own deputy, who want to take this road of adventurism must realise what they are doing to their system. I cannot imagine that the Leader of the Opposition is so stupid as to be pressurised into stopping the Budget. Those members on the other side of the House who laugh have to keep in mind that it is their system that they are tearing down.

page 2105

MONEY BILLS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 1 October 1970 in Parliament that we all know that in the British Parliament the tradition is that if a money Bill is defeated the Government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– If a money Bill were rejected in this House I would go to the Governor-General. If the Government were defeated on any vote of confidence in this House I would go to the Governor-General. There is no doubt about that. What is important is to preserve the principle, which I am certain everybody who has sat or stood in my place in this House would also have asserted in the three-quarters of a century that we have had a national Parliament, that it is the government formed in this House and answerable to this House that determines financial matters. This has been the situation not only in every English speaking democracy but also in every other country. No other country would have a situation where an upper House could reject a Budget. Nowhere in the world would there be the idea that State governments could decide the date of an election for one of the Federal Houses. These are utter distortions of the parliamentary system in Australia. However much the honourable gentleman may squirm on this matter he will be the guilty man if this practice which has endured for threequarters of a century, and this practice which is observed throughout the world today, is broken. I will not let him off the horns of his dilemma. He could not carry a motion of no confidence in the Australian Government in this House.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. Is it possible at this stage to ask to have the copy of the earlier Senate Hansard report included in the House of Representatives Hansard because it makes it quite plain that the Prime Minister was referring to a rejection by the Senate as well as by the House of Representatives?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

page 2106

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration aware that wage indexation has been described as a wage freeze? Is this description accurate or is wage indexation in the interests of Australian employees? Is he satisfied that opinion leaders now support wage indexation as a principle? Finally, does the Government see wage indexation as a means of preventing union bashing?

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

– I have seen allegations that wage indexation, the policy which has been adopted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on the initiative of this Government, is in the context of a wage freeze. That description is completely inaccurate. Wage indexation guarantees a maintenance of purchasing power of all wages for wage and salary earners generally; that is, those covered by awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the arbitration tribunals of the various States. It also means that industry and commerce are able to plan knowing that wage increases will be within a certain limit. They can look forward to wage increases being adjusted from time to time in accordance with the movement in the consumer price index and are not concerned that unions will be seeking to claim in anticipation of what they may guess to be the likely increase in the cost of living. It is important to note also that every State government eventually supported the Australian Government’s proposal as did a significant number of employer organisations.

It is also significant to note that the Liberal and National Country Party Opposition, particularly its Leaders in this Parliament, vigorously and strongly opposed the Government’s proposals. The former Leader of the Opposition, before he took his walk through the valley of death, strongly advocated that the Prime Minister should instruct the Minister for Labor to change the Australian Government’s submission. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, while he was walking across his tightrope, said that the Liberal Party would never accept wage indexation. He said that it would be sheer economic madness to introduce wage indexation in 1975. The present Leader of the Opposition said that he was certain Australia could not take the risk of introducing wage indexation. Of course, the Leader of the National Country Party thought that it would be foolish to bring in wage indexation. In fact, he reached the extraordinary conclusion that indexation would form pan of the subtle, silent revolution at work in Australia. So much for this allegedly alternative government which has virtually no policy on wages.

It has no real policy on wages. There are 2 points in this document called Employment and Industrial Relations Policy, which is put out by the Liberal Party and the National Country Party. This is alleged to be a comprehensive statement, but it has 2 points on wages. The first is that there is a need to raise the minimum wage in Australia. The second is to provide for skill, effort and responsibility. I read those points. I fancied that I had seen them somewhere. I found out that this was part time, partial, plagiarism as those parties took those 2 points from the platform of the Australian Labor Party. But they are very silent indeed- and understandably so, because they probably do not know any better- on how they will ask the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to implement these 2 policies. Of course this matter causes some amusement to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But one can understand that; it is probably a nervous giggle. In respect of union bashing, let me briefly refer to 2 points, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister be very brief.

Mr RIORDAN:

-Yes, I will be very brief. I refer first to a statement made by Senator McLaren in the Senate on 30 September, which is reported at page 789. He was dealing with a conversation that he had overheard. Referring to a statement made by the present Leader of the Opposition, Senator McLaren said:

His next proposal was that his faithful friend Tony Street would be Minister for Labor and his first task would be to take the unions on in the courts to teach them a lesson.

That was Senator McLaren’s statement. On 30 September, the very same day, the honourable member for Kooyong was reported in the Melbourne Age. He made a plea that the Liberal Party should get away from indiscriminate- I emphasise the word ‘indiscriminate’- union bashing. He is the advocate for selective union bashing.

page 2106

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

-Why did the Prime Minister refuse the request which I made of him yesterday to table all relevant documents in the overseas loan affair? Has the Prime Minister made himself aware of all relevant documents in the loans affair? Will he now table all of those documents?

Mr WHITLAM I will ask the honourable gentleman to place the question on notice. There have been so many documents tabled in this matter that I would not purport to recall any of them individually. This is not a dilemma which I face alone. I was terribly embarrassed yesterday to be asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition about exactly the same matters and in exactly the same terms as a question that he had put on notice only 6 days before. Now, if this honourable gentleman with very simple matters on his mind cannot recollect what he put on notice 6 days before, how can I be expected to recall so many things which have been tabled? The fact is that not only could the honourable gentleman not recall the question but also he had to go and ask his staff to find it for him on the notice paper. I would suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might place any such questions on the notice paper. He will know that I give a very prompt reply to any such questions.

page 2107

QUESTION

GRANTS TO SCHOOLS

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Education: What is the position of non-government schools under the proposals of the Schools Commission for 1976? How do the proposed grants compare with those made by the States at the secondary level?

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

– In the biennium 1974 and 1975 the Australian Government grants to nongovernment schools amounted to about $233m. The grants proposed by the Schools Commission for the one year 1976 amount to $157m plus about $9m in the 2 Territories, making $ 166m in all. The honourable gentleman asked me how the per capita grants- I take it that that is what he meant- compare with those by the States. For the coming year only 4 States have declared what their grants will be. New South Wales might be taken as a normative State. It will be granting $108 to primary students and $180 to secondary students in non-government schools in a flat rate grant. As the honourable gentleman knows, the proposals of the Schools Commission for next year virtually make a triennium of the Schools Commission grants of 1974 and 1975. However, there is a slight modification accepted by the Government which brings it back into line with existing policies upgraded.

There are 6 levels. Four of the 6 levels, which comprise 85 per cent of the non-government schools, exceed the grants proposed by New South Wales. In level 3 the primary grant is $ 1 27 and the secondary grant is $199. In level 4 the primary grant is $156 and the secondary grant is $246. In level 5 the primary grant is $ 1 84 and the secondary grant is $292. In level 6 the primary grant is $2 12 and the secondary grant is $338 per pupil. Levels 1 and 2 comprise the schools with greater resources, or 1 5 per cent of the schools. In level 1 the primary grant is $71 and the secondary grant is $106. In level 2 the primary grant is $99 and the secondary grant is $153. Therefore, in 85 per cent of the cases of non-government schools the proposed grants of the Australian Government will exceed those of the New South Wales Government very considerably.

page 2107

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– What is the Prime Minister’s current attitude to the Westminster doctrine of ministerial responsibility? Does the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for any of the actions of his Ministers? If not, what responsibility does he accept as leader of his Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-It is because I do accept the principle of the Westminster doctrine, that Ministers are answerable to the Parliament for what they say and do in it, that I have in the last 3 months had to take two of the most painful decisions of my life.

page 2107

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for the Media by saying briefly that the Minister would no doubt be aware of the feelings of a great number of people in the community regarding religious broadcasting by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I ask: Is it a fact that the internal programming of the ABC is the sole prerogative of the ABC? Further, does the Minister have any authority to instruct the ABC on any of its programming schedules?

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

– Last week I was asked a rather similar question.

Mr King:

– He was not listening.

Dr CASS:

– Not only was the honourable member listening but also apparently a lot of the people on the Opposition side did not understand what I said. Perhaps I did not explain it adequately. Let me try again. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is an independent statutory authority in the sense that once Parliament has provided its funds we no longer have any right to tell it what to do. There have been 2 relatively recent events- one a little while ago and one just a few weeks ago- which illustrate the point I am trying to make. I will quote them both to illustrate that both political sides, and the Ministers responsible under both the former Liberal-Country Party Government and the present Labor Government, have given a hint in one case or tried to issue a direction on another occasion and both were rebuffed.

The first occasion was during the Opposition’s period of Government and related to a broadcast by a Frenchman who was attacking President de Gaulle. At the time a direction was issued to the ABC that it should not televise the criticisms and comments of this gentleman, Monsieur Bidault, about General de Gaulle because it was thought it would not be a friendly action on the part of the Australian Government to allow such a broadcast. The direction was issued and the ABC ignored it for the very good reason that the interview already had been televised by an independent commercial television channel. The ABC saw no reason why it should not be in the act also. Thereupon a threat was made to the ABC in essence to cut its funds. A direction was given that too much money was being wasted on news and news commentary and that the funds should be allocated elsewhere. Quite rightly the ABC ignored the direction.

In recent weeks a monster called Cass dared to think aloud and suggest that in Melbourne the ABC might try to change the format of its experimental station 3ZZ. I will elaborate a little, if I may, because I was misunderstood and misreported. I did not say, as the headlines in the newspaper suggested: ‘3ZZ to go rock- Cass’. That is not what I said. I suggested to the ABC that if it chose to increase the broadcasting time for 3ZZ we would not object and we would not consider it to be a waste of money; after all the ABC has to justify its expenditures and if it gets a hint that we do not think it is a waste of money it is some encouragement for the organisation to be a bit adventurous. My view was that if the broadcasting time of 3EA was to be extended in order to allow ethnic access programs, there might be more time available for 3ZZ to allow for some other experimental broadcasting formats. I suggested that in view of the success of 2JJ in Sydney- I know it is a bore to many people but a lot of young people happen to like it- it might not be a bad idea for the ABC to try the same sort of experiment in Melbourne, not by making 3ZZ a rock station only but simply by trying some rock in the extra time it would have to see what sort of response there would be.

The ABC chose to ignore my thinking aloud, and that is all it was. I have had letters saying that it intends to continue with the present format except that it has increased the broadcasting time. I have no quarrel with the ABC. However I still like to think that there may be a few listeners amongst the young people in Melbourne who would like rock stations and with a bit of luck we can encourage the establishment of a frequency modulation station to provide that facility. I emphasise again that the ABC is independent. If it has chosen to review its religious broadcasts, that is its business, not mine, and I will not interfere.

page 2108

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Did not the Prime Minister’s refusal to establish a royal commission or other judicial inquiry into the Government’s overseas loans activities constitute an acceptance by him personally of responsibility for the actions of his Ministers over overseas loan raisings?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Opposition is always urging the appointment of a royal commission to avoid making specific charges itself. Royal commissions have been appointed hitherto, only where charges have been made. It is significant that the Opposition, in months of parliamentary sitting time, has never made a charge on this matter. I have also pointed out previously that there is no point in having a royal commission if the facts are clear. The facts which led to yesterday’s event were not disputed by anybody. It would be an absolute waste of time to appoint a royal commission. I notice there have been suggestions that Mr Khemlani, if I may mention his name in the Parliament, may consider that he has some cause of action against the Australian Government. The courts are there for him to take such action. A royal commission, as I pointed out before, does not deliver verdicts; it does not award damages.

The concluding point I should like to make is this: For the last two or three weeks we have been regaled with a great number of allegations and innuendoes about a current royal commission; that is, the findings of the royal commission did not suit the Opposition. Accordingly members of the Opposition criticised the experienced judge who was the royal commissioner. They criticised the counsel appointed to assist him. They do not accept the findings. There is no issue; there is no charge for which I believe a royal commission would be appropriate.

page 2108

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the call by the Opposition for him to resign because it believes that this Government has lost the support of the people, I ask: Can the Prime Minister recall the views of a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, the father of the Liberal Party, on such a proposal? Is there any precedent for assuming such a lack of confidence without any such motion being moved in this House?

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. That question would seem to ask the Prime Minister for an expression of opinion in an area that is not his responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question asked the Prime Minister whether there was a precedent for a government resigning. I think that would be within the area of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– As honourable members will not be surprised to know, in the last few weeks I have been carrying out some research into the general question of dismissals of governments or rejections of Supply and the like. One of the great pieces of research which came to light was a letter which Mr Menzies wrote when he was Attorney-General and Deputy Premier of Victoria to the Governor of New South Wales, Sir Philip Game. It was among the Governor’s papers, and his widow has made it available. Perhaps I might quote it. It states: . . . the newspaper demand that you should -

Mr Hunt:

– What is the date?

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is 1932. It is relevant because there have been suggestions that in this day and age, the Viceroy of Australia, the Governor-General of Australia, should withdraw the commission of the Prime Minister who has the confidence of the House of Representatives. It is suggested that the Governor-General of Australia, the Viceroy, should take this action because, for the first time in history, the Senate, which cannot initiate and cannot amend money Bills might make so bold as to reject a money Bill. The last time in Australia that a vice regal representative- it was a State Governor, a Crown Agent, in other words a British officialcancelled the commission of a head of government was in 1932. But what Mr Menzies, as he then was, wrote to Sir Philip Game is very relevant to present circumstances. He wrote: … the newspaper demand that you should dismiss a Premier on the ground that there was some reason for believing that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the electors always seemed to me to be based upon an absolute misconception of the constitutional position of a modern Governor. Under the Australian system of universal suffrage and triennial Parliaments, with a legally recognised and responsible Cabinet, it must, in my opinion, follow that so long as a Premier commands a majority in the Lower House, and so long as he is guilty of no illegal conduct which would evoke the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, he must be regarded as the competent and continuing adviser of the representative of the Crown. For a newspaper to urge a dissolution because in its opinion the Government has lost the confidence of the electorate is a mere impertinence. The constitutional authority of a Premier rests almost entirely upon his success at a general election, and upon his continued authority in the popularly elected House, and not upon irresponsible speculations as to whether he would have lost his majority if the Constitution had provided for annual and not triennial elections. Moreover, these are days (and now I speak as a politician) in which any Government may, in the stern discharge of its duty, be compelled to take steps which render it unpopular with the electorate. This, however, so far from being a good cause for its recall, may constitute its greatest claim to reputation, and one of the factors which strengthens the hand of a Government fresh from victory at the polls is that it may look forward to a period of office in which its policy may be dictated by convictions and not by the mere necessity for vote catching. It would, in my respectful opinion (and in this I am expressing the majority view among reputable lawyers in this State), have been nothing short of a calamity if during the very great constitutional crisis, New South Wales had possessed a Governor who had subordinated the constitutional authority of a Governor to the purely opportunist demands of those who found the constitutional restrictions irksome. This represents my considered view, in spite of the fact that politically I am a vigorous opponent of Mr Lang and his policy, and at all material times considered that policy to be actually disastrous to Australia.

I do commend the words of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, the first leader of it, to the present incumbent. I have had previous occasions to quote Sir Robert Menzies on the attitude that the Government should take to usurpations by the Senate which do not fall within the Senate’s powers. I vainly urged those considerations on the previous Leader of the Liberal Party.

I do not like bringing question time to an end because I am very much enjoying it. At any election for half the Senate, for the whole of the House of Representatives or for the whole of both Houses I have no doubt what the public will think when they are faced with a choice as Treasurer between Mr Hayden and Mr Lynch, when they are faced with a choice as Minister for Labor and Immigration between Senator James McClelland and the honourable member for Corangamite, and for Prime Minister between the present one and the aspirant. I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 2109

ASSOCIATION OF IRON ORE EXPORTING COUNTRIES

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present an Agreement establishing the Association of Iron Ore Exporting Countries together with a statement by me relating to that Agreement.

Mr Sinclair:

– In view of the fact that a ministerial statement has been tabled, I ask the Acting

Leader of the House whether he will move that the paper be noted.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 2110

GRANTS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1973-1975 I present the forty-second report by the Grants Commission on special assistance for States, 1975. Due to the limited numbers available at this time reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2110

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System I bring up an interm report of the Committee on a proposed system of committees for the Australian Parliament. A dissenting report signed by one member of the Committee is included with the main report.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Dr JENKINS:

- Mr Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr JENKINS:

– This Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System has now been in existence for one year. During its examination it has concentrated on paragraph (a) of its terms of reference. That is the paragraph that refers to a balanced system of committees. The Committee has suffered some of the difficulties that most joint committees suffer in the matter of attendance. Nevertheless it has pursued its inquiries, had a large number of meetings and heard quite a number of witnesses. Arising out of evidence received before the Committee it was felt that the committee systems in Ottawa and London should be particularly examined. For this a sub-committee was appointed of myself, as Chairman, Senator Peter Rae, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson). We are pleased that permission was given for this sub-committee to visit the parliaments in Ottawa and London. It also gave the Chairman of the Committee and the Clerk of the Committee an opportunity to visit Washington to examine supporting services for what is rather a different committee system.

The sub-committee had three main findings. One suggestion examined was that expenditure committees should be the province of the lower House. On paper this appeared to operate successfully elsewhere. Such was not the experience of the Committee. Expenditure committees in those circumstances did not appear to carry out the duties they were supposed to perform. However, with regard to Bills committees or legislative committees, particularly those which virtually replace the Committee of the Whole stage in this House and do a clause by clause examination of Bills, the sub-committee was most impressed with this procedure. In fact, the subcommittee having made the examination found that much of what it saw was in conflict with the verbal evidence that had been placed before the Committee in Australia and the sub-committee members had some changes of mind. The subcommittee drew up reports and requested of the full Committee that one of these reports should be published without comment for the information of members in order to get a response and to get advice from interested persons.

I believe that probably the whole Committee would have ratified that report but we felt that this was the best procedure to adopt. That was a majority decision. There is a minority report. The minority report is with regard to the procedure adopted by the Committee of issuing this interim report, not with the substance of what goes forward in it. Briefly, the recommendations of the sub-committee are that there should be legislation committees to consider Bills in the way I have indicated, a clause by clause examination, and that there should be functional standing committees with jurisdictions corresponding to specific areas of Government activity. We think that these could exist in both Houses with benefit to the Parliament. Very vitally, there should be a procedures committee which would replace the present Standing Orders Committee but which would have a wider ambit of activity than that Committee, which would continually review parliamentary practices and procedures, because it became obvious that a change in the committee system would need quite a change in parliamentary procedures. We believe that there should be select committees as required. I do not think there is any need for me to comment further on that.

With regard to financial examination by the House of Representatives, the sub-committee suggested that the current Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts which is a jount committee, should be a House of Representatives committee and should have an expanded role in financial matters. It recommended the continuation of the Senate Estimates Committees, which seem to serve the function that the expenditure committees of lower Houses in other parliaments are supposed to serve. There are also comments on what should happen to some of the committees such as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory that at present exist. We believe that just as there was expansion of the procedures committee there should be an extended scope of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of the new Senate in discussing subordinate legislation.

Let me outline briefly the further program of the Committee. We trust we will get reactions from members of the Parliament and others on this report of the sub-committee. Next week we will be hearing witnesses in regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the terms of reference. It is hoped that a report will be presented by the end of November. If other factors intervene which prevent the presentation of this report at that stage, I believe that because this Committee has the goodwill of all parties the information we have received and what we have put down on paper will not be lost but will be continued to the benefit of the Parliament.

I express my thanks to my fellow members of the Committee for their work to this stage, to the clerk of the Committee, Mr Graham Horsfield, for his work not only in Australia but overseas, and for the excellent support given by Mr Graham Friedman and by Lorraine Calabria, who has to do so much of the normal duties of preparing our reports and statements. I commend the study of this report to members of the House and invite their comments on it.

page 2111

QUESTION

QUESTION RULED OUT OF ORDER

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order that relates to today’s notice paper. You will recall, Sir, that yesterday I addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Prime Minister asked me to put it on notice. I did put it on notice, and I received from the Assistant Clerk the following note:

Your question has been considered by the Clerk and Mr Speaker and ruled to be out of order on the attached grounds.

Sir, you will recall that in the House a point of order was raised and you ruled the question in order. Subsequently you reversed your ruling. I believe that your first ruling was right and your second ruling was wrong, and I wish to put to you a point of order in regard to it.

The attached paper sets out the grounds on which you reversed, outside the House, the ruling that you had given in the House. I wish now to traverse those grounds on the points that you have raised. My question to the Prime Minister, and I read it exactly, was:

Does he recall how former President Nixon sacrificed one subordinate after another in an attempt to maintain the fiction that he had no prior knowledge of their misdeeds and that he was not involved in the Watergate affair?

The comment that I have received says:

I cannot see how paragraph 1 of the question relates to public affairs or any matter of administration for which Mr Whitlam is responsible (standing order 142).

I think it is the usual practice of this House to permit a small introductory paragraph which will help to explain the nature of the question. This is relevant because it shows that an overseas head of government, perhaps even a head of government holding a more exalted position than the Prime Minister of Australia, has done these things. It is therefore not unreasonable to consider the possibility that the head of an Australian Government might act in the same way. The preamble is short; it is relevant.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, you have said that the second paragraph clearly imputes an action to the Prime Minister, which is contrary to standing order 144. 1 wish to read now that second paragraph because I do not think, with all due respect, that it comes within the strictures which you have mentioned. It reads:

Has the Prime Minister as yet taken any steps to destroy or suppress any evidence which would show that he had personal and prior knowledge of the activities of the former Treasurer and the former Minister for Minerals and Energy?

It is well known that in the community abroad there is a grave suspicion -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman commences to debate the question he will sit down immediately.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will not debate the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is commencing to do so.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will try to show the relevance and show -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will not debate his point of order. He will make his point; he will not debate it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The point of order is that there is not an imputation here; there is an invitation to the Prime Minister to clear himself of suspicions which are current in the community and there is not an imputation in the question. If these suspicions were not current in the community perhaps -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will not debate the question. I will not rule that way again.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Sir. I am endeavouring to show- I think am showinghow my question falls within the Standing Orders and how, Mr Speaker, your first ruling which was given in the Chair was right and your second ruling which was given out of the Chair was wrong. I am endeavouring, with all due respect, to argue this in a detached and objective way. The question is whether there is an imputation in the words. I shall read them again to show that there is no imputation:

Has the Prime Minister as yet taken any steps to destroy or suppress any evidence which would show that he had personal and prior knowledge of the activities of the former Treasurer and the former Minister for Minerals and Energy?

That is an opportunity given to the Prime Minister to clear himself; it is not an imputation. Then there is the third point which is made -

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, this is tedious repetition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will listen to the point of order. I will not listen to it much longer because it is very long.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Mr Speaker, I wish to quote from your Clerk’s memorandum which, I believe, comes under your approval. It reads:

The last sentence also asks for an expression of opinion which is contrary to standing order 1 44.

I shall read the last sentence of my question to show that it does not fall within that structure. It reads:

Is he confident that none of the scapegoats will spill the beans?

That is asking for the fact of what is in the Prime Minister’s mind, not for his opinion on something outside his mind. An eminent English jurist has said- I quote a dictum which is well known to the House- that the state of a man’s mind is sometimes as much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I. think the honourable gentleman has now made his point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I realise, Sir, that it may not be of great consequence because the Prime Minister apparently -

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman starts to debate the question he will sit down very quickly. He has made his point of order and I am prepared to rule on it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-May I conclude by saying that the Prime Minister said that he wanted the question put on notice. I think that is relevant because if the Prime Minister, having heard the question, asked me to put it on notice, apparently because he could not make up his mind off the cuff on the facts, that is very significant. He could not make up his mind off the cuff on the facts about which I asked him and he asked me to put the question on notice. I think that by itself would make the question in order. Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule now that this question is in order on the grounds which I have set out.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will answer first the last part of the question. Whether the Prime Minister thinks the question is in order is as irrelevant as whether the honourable member thinks it is in order. It is whether I think it is in order which determines the position. The point of order which was taken yesterday was taken at the conclusion of the first paragraph and at that stage I ruled that the honourable member could complete his question. On the verbal evidence I allowed the question. Having studied the actual wording of the question, which is quite often different to the verbal impression which one gains in listening, I find that the question is out of order and is in line with a number of questions which I have ruled out of order. I suggest that if the honourable gentleman wishes to see me for advice the question can be phrased in a manner which would make it in order. But in the form of verbiage which he has used the question is out of order and I could not rule otherwise.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Thank you, Sir. I will endeavour to phrase it in a way which will get the truth out of the Prime Minister.

page 2112

STATES GRANTS BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise revisions to the financial assistance grants arrangements settled at the Premiers’ Conference held on 19 June 1975, and to authorise adjustments to the financial assistance grants payable to South Australia and Tasmania in connection with the railway transfers in those States and in connection with the former State’s withdrawal from the

Grants Commission system. The changes to the financial assistance grants arrangements provided for by this Bill are an increase in the financial assistance grants of $220m in 1975-76 above those which would otherwise be payable under existing legislation, and the addition of this amount to the base for calculating the grants in subsequent years; an increase in the ‘betterment’ factor from the present 1.8 per cent to 3 per cent to apply for purposes of calculating the financial assistance grants for 1976-77 and later years; an addition of $5m to the base amount on which Western Australia’s grant for 1975-76 and subsequent years will be calculated; an addition of $21m to the base amount on which South Australia’s financial assistance grant for 1975-76 and subsequent years is to be calculated; and the deduction of $ 10.7m from the base amount on which Tasmania’s financial assistance grant for 1 975-76 and subsequent years is to be calculated.

As honourable members will know, the financial assistance grants are the chief form in which grants are made to the States for general revenue purposes. They are subject to no conditions as to the purpose for which they may be spent. Very briefly, the present arrangements provide for the financial assistance grants to be determined by a formula under which the grant paid to each State in each financial year is calculated by taking the grant paid to it in the preceding year and increasing that grant by factors which take into account the growth in each State’s population, the increase in average wages in Australia as a whole and a ‘betterment’ factor to assist the States in improving the standard and range of their services. In accordance with this Government’s undertaking to review the existing arrangements before the end of 1974-75, consultations took place with the governments of the States and with their respective officers prior to last June’s Premiers’ Conference. At that conference the Australian Government agreed to introduce legislation to provide for the first three of the changes to the financial assistance grants arrangements which I listed earlier.

The details of our consultations with the States prior to and at last June’s Premiers Conference, and the basis of the changes agreed to, are set out in the Budget paper entitled: ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1975-76’. I only point out here that the $220m increase in the financial assistance grants is a very substantial amount, particularly when it is considered that this increase is on top of the increases produced in the grants this year by the operation of the formula. Furthermore, the addition of this amount to the base for calculating the grants in future years, and the raising of the ‘betterment’ factor from 1.8 per cent to 3 per cent, will ensure that the States will receive further large increases in general revenue funds in 1976-77 and subsequent years.

I should also explain here that the addition of $5m to Western Australia’s grant is being made following representations by the Western Australian Government in relation to the additional financial assistance grants it has received since 1967-68 following its withdrawal from the special grants system. The remaining 2 adjustments to the grants arrangements are connected with the transfer of railways in South Australia and Tasmania and with the former State’s withdrawal from the Grants Commission. The addition of $21m to South Australia’s base grant is comprised of: (i) A reduction of $29m, being an agreed figure representing the State’s nonmetropolitan railway loss in 1974-75; (ii) an increase of $25m providing general budgetary assistance to the State; and (iii) a further increase of $2 5 m to compensate the State for loss of special grants which it received prior to its withdrawal from the Grants Commission system.

The deduction of $10.7m from Tasmania’s base grant is comprised of: (i) A reduction of $14m being an agreed figure representing the State’s railway loss in 1974-75; and (ii) an increase of $3.3m providing general budgetary assistance to the State.

Turning to the details of the Bill, the first 2 clauses are of a machinery nature. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the amendment of the States Grants Act 1973-74- the legislation which at present authorises the payment of financial assistance grants to the States- by the insertion of 4 new sub-sections to section 6, namely subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8). Sub-section (5) specifies that an addition of $21m is to be made to the base for calculating the grant payable to South Australia in 1 975-76 and subsequent years under the formula laid down in earlier parts of section 6. Sub-section (6) specifies that an addition of $5m is to be made to the base for calculating the grant payable to Western Australia in 1975-76 and subsequent years. Sub-section (7) specifies that an addition of $4.3 m is to be made to the base for calculating the grant payable to Tasmania in 1975-76 and subsequent years. The $4.3m is the difference between the addition of $15m made to Tasmania’s grant under section 6a of the existing Act- which is to be repealed under clause 4 of the present Bill- and the deduction of $ 10.7m to be made to Tasmania’s grant in connection with the railway transfer in that State.

Sub-section (8) specifies that the ‘betterment’ factor in the formula is to be raised from the present 1.8 per cent to 3 per cent for puposes of calculating the grants in 1976-77 and subsequent years. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the insertion of a new section 7 consisting of 2 subsections. The first of these specifies that $220m is to be added to the grants payable in 1975-76 under section 6, and distributed among the States in the same proportion as the grants payable under section 6. Sub-section (2) of the new section 7 specifies that the $220m is to be added to the base for calculating the grants payable in 1 976-77 and subsequent years.

Finally, clause 5 of the Bill provides for the amendment of section 1 1 of the existing Act in order to specify that the financial assistance grants arrangements are to be reviewed again before the end of 1979-80. Full details of the financial assistance grants to be paid to the States in 1975-76 and the nature of the formula for calculating the grants in subsequent years are given in chapter 2 of the Budget paper entitled: ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1975-76’.

After incorporating the changes I have outlined and on the basis of current estimates of increases in population and average wages, the financial assistance grants are estimated to total $3, 184.6m in the current financial year. This is $8 10.8m or about 34 per cent higher than in the previous year. It would, I believe be appropriate for me at this stage to refer to the overall position in relation to Australian Government Assistance to the States and their authorities in 1 975-76. It is estimated that over 38 per cent of outlays from the Australian Government’s Budget in 1975-76 will take the form of payments to or for the States or their authorities. Such payments are expected to grow much more rapidly than other forms of outlays- that is outlays on matters for which the Australian Government is directly responsible. Payments to or for the States and their authorities are expected to increase by over 30 per cent, compared with an increase of about 18 per cent in all other Budget outlays.

This very large increase in payments to or for the States- amounting to about $2,000m- is attributable to a number of factors. First, and most important, is the very large increase of about $900m in general purpose funds- that is ‘untied’ funds which the States are free to spend as they decide themselves. This reflects, amongst other things, the improved financial assistance grants arrangements which I have been discussing. Secondly, the large increase in payment to the States reflects the new Medibank arrangements for financing the running costs of public hospitals, under which payments of the order of $700m are to be made to the States in 1975-76. The purpose of the new arrangements is, of course, to improve the quality and availability of health care and to rationalise and make more equitable the financing thereof. However, the new Medibank arrangements will also have the effect of providing very substantial and continuing relief to the States’ budgets which in effect amounts to further general assistance which the States are free to use as they decide themselves. Thirdly, the increased allocations for local government, including $79. 9m as untied assistance as recommended by the Grants Commission, and about $97m under the Regional Employment Development scheme, are relevant.

In other areas of payments to or for the States there are lesser increases or, in some cases, relatively small reductions. This is consistent with the Government’s overall budgetary strategy of expenditure restraint. Taking all forms of payments to the States together, however, and looking particularly at the area of untied assistance, it is clear that the States and their authorities have come out of the Budget quite well. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2114

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment in 1975-76 of special grants of $36.3m to Queensland and $2.5m to South Australia. These payments are in accordance with the recommendations of the Grants Commission contained in its Forty-Second Report on Special Assistance for States, which has been tabled by the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland). The Bill also seeks authority for payment of advances to Queensland in the early months of 1976-77, pending receipt of the Commission ‘s recommendations for that year and enactment of any necessary legislation to provide for the grant that may be paid to the State in that year.

The Australian Government makes special grants to certain of the States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own resources and higher costs in providing government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. For many years now, however, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided has been through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to the 4 less populous states. The financial assistance grants are, of course, the main general revenue grants to the States. The special grants may, therefore, be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, and as having the special characteristic of being independently as well as expertly assessed by the Grants Commission.

In arriving at its recommendations, the Grants Commission makes an assessment of the ‘financial needs’ of the’ claimant States. To quantify these needs, the Commission compares in detail the finances of each claimant State with those of New South Wales and Victoria, taking into account differences in revenue-raising capacity and differences in the cost of providing comparable services. The payments of special grants recommended by the Grants Commission consist of 2 parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the finances of the claimant and standard States. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made 2 years earlier and is known as the completion payment. This adjustment may be positive or negative and therefore may result in the final grant in respect of that year being higher or lower than the original advance payment.

The Commission has recommended that an advance payment of $25m be made to Queensland in 1975-76- an increase of 67 per cent on that made for 1974-75- and that a completion payment of $1 1.3m be paid to the State in respect of 1973-74. The 1975-76 advance grant will, of course, be subject to adjustment, if necessary, in 1977-78. The $2.5m payment to South Australia referred to in this Bill is a completion payment in respect of 1 973-74.

For the information of honourable members, I mention that, as part of the negotiations on the transfer of South Australia’s non-metropolitan railways, arrangements were agreed with the

State for withdrawal from the Grants Commission system at the end of 1974-75. To compensate the State for the loss of special grants, an addition of $25m is to be made to the 1974-75 ‘base’ on which the State’s financial assistance grant for 1975-76 is to be calculated. This is provided for in the States Grants Bill 1975. I also add, for clarity, that payments totalling $ 16.434m were also made to the State in 1974-75 in this connection, comprising amounts of: $10m in lieu of the completion payment which the State would have expected to receive in 1976-77 in respect of 1974-75 if the State had remained claimant under the procedures of the Grants Commission; and $6. 434m being payment of the ‘unused assessed grants’ referred to in paragraphs 1-17 of the Grants Commission’s Forty-First Report.

The Commission’s recommendations have been adopted by Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2115

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments, in 1975-76, of amounts totalling $79,908,000 to local governing bodies throughout Australia. These payments are in accord with the recommendations of the Grants Commission contained in its Second Report on Financial Assistance to local government which I tabled in the house on 19 August 1975. They represent an increase of almost 42 per cent on the 1974-75 allocations of $56.3m. The 844 local governing bodies which will benefit from the passing of this Bill comprise 95 per cent of all the bodies which applied for financial assistance. Last year, 13 councils chose not to apply for assistance. This year all eligible local governing bodies sought grants. Our aim is to reduce inequalities between local governing authorities throughout Australia. The Australian Government believes that, until the barriers of inequality have been broken down, local government will not be in a position to fulfil its proper role as a true partner in the Federal system.

Since coming to office, the Government has vigorously pursued its commitment to strengthen the status of local Government. The Government’s decision to extent the Grants Commission operation to local government represented an historic breakthrough. It enabled the Grants Commission to play the same role in reducing inequalities between local governing authorities, as it has since 1933, in reducing inequalities between the States. It gave local government, for the first time, access to untied Federal funds. In accordance with the principles of fiscal equalisation which have been developed by the Grants Commission over many years the Grants are designed to reduce inequalities between local governing bodies in the provision of services to their communities. Again there will be no conditions attached to the expenditure of the grants this year. They are untied grants completely without strings. The grants are not intended to replace existing State government grants, or rates and charges by councils. They will be made to the States for payment to local governing bodies to supplement their general revenues to enable them to provide services of a standard comparable with those provided by councils elsewhere. The nature of the equalisation process is such that in any year some local governing bodies will receive lower grants than their neighbouring councils: Some will receive no grants. In this year’s program, the number of councils not receiving a grant was reduced to 41. Last year 70 councils did not receive a grant.

The Commission’s methods require that comprehensive and up to date financial and statistical information be submitted by councils as a basis for assessment of their claims. But the Commission’s Assessment does not rest there. It also ensures it has a first-hand appreciation of the problems faced by councils. During the second round or public hearings which led up to these recommendations, members of the grants commission travelled extensively making inspections in all regions and in all States to see at first hand the problems of local government. Over the last 40 years, the Grants Commission has earned for itself an enviable reputation for its role in reducing the financial inequalities which exist between the Australian States. Under its new chairman, Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell, the Commission is continuing to bring to bear the same expertise and sympathetic understanding to the problem of reducing the inequalities which abound in local government. A total of over $136m in equalisation grants has been earmarked for payment through State governments to specified councils in the 2 years of the scheme ‘s operation.

This period has witnessed significant progress towards the new federalism in which local government will take its rightful role in a balanced working partnership with both the State and Federal governments. It is to be hoped that the current Australasian joint study into local government finances, which involves representatives of the 3 tiers of government, will provide the kind of solutions that will cement that partnership. The Grants Commission scheme is an excellent example of the level of co-operation and understanding that can be achieved between Federal, State and local government. The Government believes that these grants will go a long way towards alleviating the problems of local government. The many letters of appreciation the Government is receiving from councils support this belief and reflect the widespread approval of the initiative the Government has taken in making this form of untied grant available.

I turn now to the detail of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 7 are intended to ensure that out of the moneys payable to the States under the Act the States will pay to the local governing bodies the amounts specified for each body in the Schedule to the Act and that the payments of those amounts will be unconditional and will be made before 1 July 1976. Clause 5 provides for the situation of a local governing body ceasing to exist before the commencement of the Act or before receiving payment for all or part of the amount specified in the Schedule. This situation might arise, for example, upon the amalgamation of local governing bodies. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2116

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 3) 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Social Security · Lang · ALP

– I move:

This Bill embodies the Government’s Budget proposals for improvements in social service pensions and benefits. These improvements while significant in themselves do not extend to substantial new initiatives in the social services field. As has been explained by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden), this is a time for consolidation of advances pending a full review of the income security system in the next 12 months. The main provisions of the Bill are as follows:

  1. . The standard rate of pension for aged persons, invalids, widows and supporting mothers is to be increased by $2.75 a week to $38.75 a week.
  2. The married rate of pension is to be increased by $2.25 a week to $32.25 a week-that is, by $4.50 to $64.50 a week for a pensioner couple.
  3. Additional payments for children of pensioners and supporting mothers are to be increased by 50c a week to $7.50 a week for each child.
  4. Double orphan’s pension- now payable at the rate of $ 1 1 a week- is to be extended to cover a child, one of whose parents is dead and whose other parent is in prison or in a mental hospital.
  5. Unemployment and sickness benefits payable to unmarried persons aged 18 years or more are to be increased by $2.75 a week to $38.75 a week.
  6. Unemployment and sickness benefits payable to married persons are to be increased by $2.25 a week to $32.25 a week.
  7. Additional unemployment and sickness benefits payable in respect of dependent spouses are to be increased by $2.25 a week to $32.25 a week.
  8. Additional payments for children of unemployment and sickness beneficiaries are to be increased by 50c a week to $7.50 a week for each child.

The proposed pension increases will flow on to recipients of sheltered employment allowances.

Honourable members will know it is the Government’s objective to lift progressively the standard of living of pensioners by raising the standard rate of pension twice a year until it reaches 25 per cent of seasonally adjusted average weekly male earnings. Since December 1972, when the Government came to office, a substantial real redistribution of income has been effected in favour of pensioners and beneficiaries. However in the present climate of high inflation and unemployment the Government believes that for the immediate future all of us should show restraint in our demands for more resources, whether it be for public services or for higher incomes. For that reason the Budget proposes to increase, as a temporary measure, the standard rate of pension by the percentage increase in the consumer price index between the December quarter in 1974 and the June quarter in 1975 and to base the increase payable in the autumn of 1976 on the increase in the CPI between the June and December quarters of 1 975.

This does not represent a change in Government policy or an abandonment of the principle that pensions should be raised to the level of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have decided to increase pensions this year by rises in the consumer price index as a temporary measure to ease the pressures of public spending on the economy. It is, however, interesting that for the first time since this Government has been in office we have, with this latest proposed increase, achieved our goal. Age and invalid pensions now represent 25.2 per cent of average weekly earnings. The increase proposed in this Bill resulting from this method of calculation in the case of the standard rate of pension is $2.75 a week. The proposed standard rate of pension is $38.75 a week, which is equivalent to 25.2 per cent of average weekly male earnings for the June quarter in 1975, the latest quarter for which figures are available. The increase will consequently maintain for pensioners the real gains in spending power that have been achieved by them since the Government came to office and, on the basis of the June 1975 figures, will marginally improve their position. With the proposed increases the standard rate of pension will have increased by almost 94 per cent since December 1972 and the married rate by 87 per cent. Compared with this, over the period from June 1 972 to June 1 975 the consumer price index increased by only 45 per cent and seasonally adjusted average weekly male earnings increased by only 61 per cent.

I will now give examples of some of the effects of the proposed increases. A class A widow or supporting mother will receive a basic pension or benefit of $38.75 a week, together with mother’s allowance of up to $4 a week and additional pension of up to $7.50 a week for each dependent child. The mother’s allowance is payable at $6 a week if there is a child under six years or an invalid child requiring full-time care. Thus, a class A widow or supporting mother with 2 noninvalid children over six years will receive a maximum pension or benefit of $57.75 a week. The same rate will apply to single age or invalid pensioners with children. If the pensioner or supporting mother pays rent supplementary assistance of up to $5 a week is payable in addition to pension. The maximum proposed pension of $64.50 a week for a married couple may also be increased by up to $7.50 a week for each dependent child and, if rent is paid, up to $5 a week is available by way of supplementary assistance.

The proposed increases will have the effect of raising the limits of income and property at which pensions cease to be payable under the means test. This will enable people who are now excluded from pension entitlement to qualify for some payment for the first time. The limit of income which just precludes payment of a pension to a single person without children and with no property affecting his pension, will be increased by twice the amount of the pension increase to $97.50 a week. If he has no other income he will be eligible to receive some pension until the value of his property assessable for means test purposes reaches $5 1,100. For a married couple without children, the equivalent limits of income and property will be $163.50 a week and $85,840 respectively.

A widow or supporting mother with one child and no property affecting will be able to receive other income of up to $ 126.50 a week before losing her entitlement to widow’s pension, or supporting mother’s benefit. If her child is under 6 years of age or an invalid child requiring full time care she will be able to receive other income up to $130.50 a week without losing her entitlement. If she has no income affecting, a widow or supporting mother with one child may have property to the value of $56,860. If her child is under six or an invalid child requiring full time care she may have property to the value of $58,940 before entitlement is extinguished. There are various combinations of income and property in between the figures I have quoted which will permit the payment of a full or part pension.

In turning to the proposal to extend the scope of double orphan’s pension I should first say that this pension was introduced by the present Labor Government in September 1973 as a measure of assistance for people caring for children who have permanently lost the companionship, support and comfort normally provided by parents. Double orphan’s pension is paid in respect of a child both of whose parents, or adoptive parents, are dead. The principle also extends to a child one of whose parents, or adoptive parents, is dead if the whereabouts of the other is unknown to the claimant.

Requests have been received from various quarters proposing that the scope of eligibility be extended to include a child whose sole surviving parent is in prison or in a mental hospital. The

Government feels that the position of these children is not greatly different from that of children whose parents are both dead or where one parent is dead and the whereabouts of the other unknown. Accordingly it has been decided to extend payment to a person who is caring for a child one of whose parents is dead and the other serving a term of imprisonment for life or for not less than 10 years or who is a mental hospital patient and, in the opinion of the DirectorGeneral, will remain so for an indefinite period.

The Bill also contains provisions relating to the treatment of de facto marriage relationships. The policy of the present and previous governments has been that couples living together on a bona fide domestic basis, though not legally married, should not be placed in a better position for pension or benefit purposes than if they were legally married. One effect of this is that the financial resources, if any, of a de facto spouse are included in the calculation of his or her partner’s entitlement to pension or benefit.

Mr Chipp:

– What is your view of a de facto relationship?

Mr STEWART:

-My view of a de facto relationship is that I would never have one with you. However, attention has recently been drawn to anomalies arising from the fact that the definition of dependent female in sections 18 and 106 of the Social Services Act relate only to de facto relationships of 3 years’ duration. The Government proposes to correct these anomalies by deleting the references to 3 years’ duration. This will mean that in future a de facto wife who is living with a man on a bona fide domestic basis will qualify for wife’s pension or attract additional unemployment or sickness benefit without any regard to a qualifying period on the same basis as women who are legally married. At present if they have not lived with their husbands for at least 3 years special benefit may be granted but the need to assist them in this way will cease as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

The Bill also contains a provision which will give specific authority for the exclusion of a woman living with a man on a bona fide domestic basis from entitlement to a widow’s pension. In doing so the Bill removes any doubt which may have existed in this area. While it will of course continue to be necessary for officers of the Department of Social Security to determine the facts in these matters it is proposed to reinforce the instructions already in force that all such inquiries must be conducted with tact and discretion.

A further provision will enable an overpayment of child endowment to be recovered from any continuing entitlement to endowment. As the Principal Act stands at present this is not possible. The amendment will suit the convenience of endowees who for one reason or another have been overpaid endowment and have a continuing entitlement.

In addition the Bill provides that where the rate of pension or supporting mother’s benefit as determined under the means test is less than $ 1 a fortnight, payment will be made at the rate of $1 a fortnight. It has been found that the issue of cheques for small amounts such as 20 cents a fortnight- the minimum rate now paid- is often a source of annoyance rather than satisfaction to the recipient. In future the value of all fortnightly instalments of pension and supporting mother’s benefit will be not less than $1. The same minimum amount is to apply to all adjusting cheques.

The new rates provided for in this Bill will be payable from 4 November 1975 in the case of widow’s pension and supporting mother’s benefit and from 13 November 1975 in the case of age, invalid and wife’s pension. Increases in the rates of unemployment and sickness benefits will operate in respect of payments due on and after 1 November 1975 or on and after the date of Royal Assent, whichever is later. The full year cost of the proposals in this Bill is estimated to be $5 18m and $234m in 1975-76. Increases in Service pensions will involve an additional $3 lm for a full year and $ 14m in 1975-76. For 1975-76 the total cost will be approximately $248m.

The record of the Australian Labor Government in the field of social security since it gained office in December 1972 speaks for itself. The figures I have quoted in this second reading speech show conclusively that we have kept most if not all of our promises to the recipients of social service benefits in Australia. We have introduced new initiatives in social security that were left lying on the table or under the table for 23 years during the administration of governments formed by the Opposition parties. As there is talk of election in the air at the moment I want the people in receipt of social security pensions to recognise that this Government has done more for them in 3 years than previous governments did in 23 years. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Chipp:

– In view of the enthusiasm of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) we share the view that passage of this Bill should be expedited and I seek leave of the House to move ‘that the debate be adjourned and made an order of the day for a later hour this day’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Under the provisions of standing order 218, the debate has to be adjourned until a future day unless leave of the House is granted. Is leave granted?

Mr Riordan:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 2119

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Lang · ALP

-I move:

This Bill gives effect to the Government’s proposals to update certain repatriation benefits, and will show the continuing recognition of our responsibility to those who made such a valuable contribution to the security of our country. We owe an everlasting debt of gratitude to them. Since coming to office this Government has made enduring and substantial reforms in the repatriation field. It is now time to take stock of these achievements and to consolidate the gains we have made.

Under the Labor Government the needs of repatriation pensioners and their dependants have been recognised and much has been done to ensure that they are adequately compensated. For example the special rate (totally and permanently incapacitated) pensioner will, as a result of Government actions since 1972 and those now proposed, be in a financial position which is far better than that which existed under the previous Government. In March 1973 and retrospective to December 1972, the special rate pension, paid to the totally and permanently incapacitated veteran, was restored to the level of the minimum wage for the first time since 1950. Further, since 1973 the special rate pension has been increased commensurate with movements in the minimum wage. Since the Government took office this pension has already been increased by $20.10 a week. The new rate of $74.10 a week proposed in this Bill will bring the total increase to $26. 10 a week. Although the general ( 100 per cent) rate is not being increased on this occasion, the Labor Government has progressively raised it to the current figure of $28 a week- an increase of 100 per cent in less than 3 years. In contrast, the previous Government provided only one increase of $2 a week in its last 8 years in office.

The increases in the war and defence widows’ pension rate provides a further example of the concern shown by the Labor Government for the dependants of veterans. Since 1972 this pension rate has been increased by $16 a week. This Bill proposes a further increase of $2.75 a week. The new rate will be $38.75 a week. The intermediate rate of pension is also to be increased. This pension is paid to veterans who, because of servicerelated incapacity, are able to work only part time or intermittently and consequently are unable to earn a living wage. The Bill provides that this pension will be increased by $3.00 a week to $51.05.

About 70 000 pensioners will benefit from the proposed increases in these pensions. The increases will cost approximately $8.8m during the current financial year. The service pension is also to be increased. It is payable, subject to a means test, to a veteran who served in a theatre of war and is aged 60 years or over- 55 years if a female- or who is permanently unemployable, or, irrespective of the area of service, suffers from pulmonary tuberculosis. Increases in Service pensions flow automatically from those proposed for age and invalid pensions in the Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1975. For the standard rate the increase will be $2.75 a week and for the married rate it will be $2.25 a week. The new standard and married rates of Service pension will therefore be $38.75 and $32.25 a week respectively. A total of more than 118 000 Service pensioners will benefit from these increases. It is proposed that increased rates will be effective from the date on which the Bill receives royal assent. As the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has already announced, the Government has agreed to further improvements in disability and Service pension rates to apply as from the autumn of 1 976. Amending legislation to give effect to these further increases will be introduced early in 1976.

The Bill amends the Repatriation Act to enable the appointment of a member of the Repatriation Commission to act as Secretary to the Department of Repatriation and Compensation and Chairman of the Repatriation Commission, in the absence of the person permanently appointed to those positions. Provision is also included in the Bill to remove any doubts about the right of appeal to an Assessment Appeal Tribunal by a member of the forces of a Commonwealth country whose claim for a service pension has been refused on the grounds that he is not permanently unemployable or suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. A further provision removes the need for service pensioners aged 70 years and over to notify the Repatriation Commission of any change in their financial position.

Again I say that our record as a government since December 1972- (Quorum formed).

I thank the Opposition Deputy Whip for calling that quorum. I was about to complete my second reading speech on the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1975. As honourable members will recall, I was saying that again our actions in the field of repatriation have demonstrated a deep desire on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to see that our ex-service men and women receive the benefits to which they are justly entitled. I speak as a returned soldier. I speak as a secretary of the Repatriation Committee of the Australian Labor Party when we were in Opposition. I have taken a great deal of interest in repatriation benefits. There is no doubt in my mind that since 1972 the Australian Labor Party Government has demonstrated far more readily its interest in the welfare of our returned service men and women than did the previous government. I should like our ex-Service organisations, be they Navy, Army or Air Force, to compare our attitude, our achievements and our benefits to them with the previous benefits given by the Liberal-Country Party Government. There is no doubt that they will see that the Australian Labor Party Government since 1972 has demonstrated that it is interested in the welfare of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen. I commend the Bill to the House. ‘ Mr CHIPP (Hotham) (12.0)-Mr Deputy Speaker, because of the Government’s reaction in refusing to accept the Opposition’s suggestion that the Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1975 be made an order of the day for a later hour this day I now move:

That this debate be adjourned and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 6) 1975 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-When this debate was interrupted last night because of the time set for the adjournment debate I was making some comments on the speech of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) who introduced this Bill. This Bill is one of 6 Bills being presented to the House which contain provisions that were in Bills known as the Electoral Laws Amendment Bills which had twice been debated by the House in November last year and in April this year. In both those debates in this House and in the Senate the Opposition made clear its view that these Bills were intended to change the electoral procedures and the electoral laws in the interests of the Australian Labor Party and not in the interests of reform- a favourite word of the Minister- or of improving the electoral procedures. The Opposition still holds to that view. In respect of this Bill, however, the Opposition believes that a number of the provisions are worth while and I commented briefly last night about mobile polling booths. I said that we were not opposing that provision of the Bill which establishes mobile polling booths thought I believe that it needs to be watched to ensure that they will have the effect the Minister anticipates.

Another proposal in this Bill requires a candidate to state whether he has changed his name within 12 months prior to nomination and if he has this detail is to be included on the ballot paper. Another proposal relates to a situation in which a person seeks to enrol under a name that is very strange and, as the Minister stated, is unacceptable. The Minister cited examples of instances at the 1974 Senate election where a number of persons enrolled under such names. One person changed his name to White Australia and another changed his name to Stop Asian Immigration Now. This Bill provides that a person with such an unacceptable name should not be entitled to be enrolled as a candidate, and the Opposition sees a lot of sense in that proposal. Those 2 provisions in the Bill are, of course, based on recent electoral experience.

The Opposition thinks, however, that it is a pity that the provisions in the original Bill were divided into 6 new Bills. Firstly, we do not know why this happened. Secondly, we think it would have been more sensible had those provisions which we indicated we would agree to been put into one or perhaps 2 Bills so that there would be no question of moving amendments. Indeed little debate would be necessary. The amendments that we seek to this legislation are contained in a schedule which has been circulated. Honourable members following the debate will have seen those amendments in my name. In the Committee stages I will briefly outline why we take that view. We believe that clause 6 of the Bill ought to be deleted and our view will be put in some detail during the Committee stage. The Government is in the process of changing in Acts provisions which refer to christian names. They want to take out the words ‘christian names’ and substitute the words ‘given names’. We believe there are still a lot of people who attach importance to having names which they regard as christian names and that there ought to be an option. So we will move amendments which will endeavour to change this Bill so that the appropriate provisions will include the word ‘christian’ or the words ‘ given names ‘.

Mr Riordan:

– What is the difference?

Mr GARLAND:

– I will develop that a little later for the honourable member. I am actually surprised to hear that interjection from him. Another major amendment the Opposition seeks is in respect of the provision of voting facilities for people who live in remote regions in Australia. We believe that the present system of postal voting is inadequate and, bearing in mind the slowness of the mails in some cases and the very remote regions in which some people live, we will attempt to have this part of the Bill amended by inserting a clause, which has been drafted by the Parliamentary Draftsman, to make provision to cover the situation. As I indicated in debate yesterday on other electoral Bills, this amendment and the attitude of the Opposition will be pressed in the Senate in an identical manner. There are one or two other minor matters which perhaps one could leave until that time. I have outlined in general what we propose to do. We will be voting for the second reading of the Bill but we will be moving several amendments in the Committee stage.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I have just a few comments on a couple of matters in relation to this Bill. I think debate on the electoral Bills has been very difficult, because our request for a cognate debate on all of them was not acceptable. We could perhaps have been permitted to make reference to the effects of one Bill on the other Bills because they are very much interrelated. In relation to the attempt now to do something for people who are in hospitals by making voting facilities available to them I would reiterate what has been said so many times in this House by members from both sides, namely that the idea is not an idea that has been initiated for the first time by the Australian Labor Party. It was an idea initially of course put forward by the Liberal Party in 1971 in the proposed amendments it then had in mind but which it subsequently dropped.

One of the poorest methods of campaigning that all political parties in Australia have now thrust upon themselves is that of going around hospitals, old folks homes and nursing homes to try to squeeze out of the electorate the very last vote that may be available to them. We do not go to hospitals with 400, 500 or 600 beds because we are interested in getting all the votes. We go there because 100 of those patients may be on the electoral rolls for what we call marginal seats. So it is necessary to go around a hospital harassing the staff and the patients to ensure that we squeeze out the very last vote available in those electorates. This is a system which we all ought to join together in rejecting because it can be manipulated. For instance, if there is a matron at a hospital, an old folks home or a nursing home whose political persuasion may be one way or another, she can give direct assistance to that political party by getting it there first, by seeing that the patients fill out the applications for a postal vote, by seeing that the party she favours is present when the postal vote form arrives or by making sure that the patient hangs on to it. It seems to me to be a system which we ought to reject because it does the patient no good. We do get in the way of the staffs of those hospitals. It seems to me that the correct method is to adopt the suggestion put forward in this Bill, to have the mobile voting facility made available through the Electoral Office on the day of the poll so that those people have facilities equal to those available to us who are fit and well enough to go to our local polling booths. To reject that proposal would be to accept the continuation, the consolidation and perhaps the accentuation of the present system. Having been through that system in as many campaigns as most people in the House and seeing the way in which it is operating it seems to me that this proposal ought to receive the unanimous support of all honourable members.

Mr King:

– You are older than I thought you were.

Mr YOUNG:

– That seems to be so only because of my intelligence and experience; it is not so much because of my looks. The second thing I want to refer to is the suggestion that has been put forward and insisted upon by the Opposition in relation to having a register of general postal voters. This is one of the poorest ideas in terms of putting anything into our electoral system that I have ever heard of. To consider that we ought to isolate away a register of people who will accept that they will have a postal vote at each election seems to me to be building into our electoral system the suggestion that we can perhaps have separate rolls. It is proposed to start off with a register for those who may want a postal vote but the process may continue so that we have registers of specific people or classifications of people throughout the community. It is the sort of thing which may start in regard to the postal voting system but it could continue into other areas of the community. For that reason it ought to be rejected.

There has been no view put forward here that would persuade anybody to believe that there are large numbers of people being denied a vote in Australia. In fact, I cannot recall on any occasion in this House during the debates that have taken place on all the electoral Bills an honourable member’s saying on behalf of even one person that that person had been denied a vote. The system as it operates now gives people plenty of time in which to apply for a postal vote and to receive it if they should want to. In fact the system has been over-generous. In spite of the criticism that has come from the opposite benches about the closing down of some of the polling booths, it seems to me in pure economic terms that the system that has operated in the past has been over-generous.

The idea of having a register is an idea that ought to be rejected, particularly because one of the other suggestions put forward by the Government in the electoral Bills is that we should change the postal voting form at each election because we have also seen that system manipulated in the past by various candidates, again particularly those in marginal seats. I see the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) smiling. I do not know, but perhaps he has had some experience in filling out postal voting forms well before the writs have been issued because he may know who applied for a postal vote at previous elections in his electorate. We want to change the postal voting form at each election so that the system cannot be manipulated. We should reject the idea that in any circumstance we should classify one group of people, whether they be postal voters, Catholics, Methodists, black people, white people or whatever they be. We should never start a system of building into the electoral laws of Australia registers of specific voters. It is for that reason that I support the Bill and reject specifically the main amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Frankly, the honourable member for

Port Adelaide (Mr Young) surprised me in that he indicated so much opposition to what is being proposed by the Opposition because it does have merit. Either he does not understand what the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) is proposing on behalf of the Opposition or alternatively he has a closed mind. It is regrettable to see that aspect in a person who came here with so much promise. I suggest that the proposed register system should be expanded further. As the previous speaker said, the postal voting system is subjected to tremendous competition by the candidates for the various marginal electorates. Whilst the present system continues the candidates will have no alternative but to do their utmost to ensure that they maximise their opportunities for gaining votes. The suggestion of the Opposition that a register should be kept would work well and if expanded to include the aged and infirm who cannot go to a polling booth it would remove much of the hassle which presently exists.

I do not believe that anybody in this House really indulges in an unlawful practice. I am the first to admit that the nature of my electorate forces me to keep in my office a register of those who voted by postal vote in the previous Federal election. The facts are that the Australian Labor Party in Griffith keeps a similar roll and if I were not to keep one I would be certainly swallowed up because of inactivity. I do not do anything illegal but I am forced to assume a role which I believe should be that of the Commonwealth Government. It is my view that permanent invalids and very aged persons should be given the option of having their names placed on a roll so that when a Federal election, whether it be a Senate or a House of Representatives election, is held, it is the duty of the various returning officers to forward to those persons a form that is almost completed, reminding the persons of their obligations and of their right to have a postal vote. This system in itself would avoid the various political parties’ supporters banging on doors and hassling the aged and the sick. It is we who decree that it is compulsory to vote in Australia. Some other countries do not have compulsory voting. I am one who believes in compulsory voting but whilst I believe in that I believe also that the Government, whether it be Liberal or Labor, has an obligation to our sick and aged people to make it as easy as possible for them to cast a vote.

I turn to another subject and another amendment suggested by the Opposition. The reaction of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) who is at the table and who is representing the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) in his absence, amazed me. I was amazed that a man of his background and standing questioned the wisdom of the Opposition’s amendment that instead of the forms being changed to read simply ‘given names’ we should insert ‘Christian names’ also. It is a subject which I raised in this House some months ago. I noticed some weeks ago that one of our weekend newspapers described such matters as trivia. But I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if this is trivial, why is the Government so hell bent on removing the words ‘Christian names’ from all Government forms and replacing them with ‘given names’? I understand and appreciate that in Australia not everybody wishes to consider himself or herself as a Christian and that to have to write a first name over the caption ‘Christian name’ could be offensive. Equally true is the argument that many people regard their first names as their Christian names. To force them to write what they regard as a Christian name over the caption ‘Given Names’ is to them equally intolerable or repugnant.

I believe that the Opposition is taking into account that we have 2 groups of people in our society in suggesting that the forms should include the words ‘Given or Christian Names’. It is up to the individual to decide whether he regards himself as a Christian or otherwise. It is not up to the Government to insist that a person take a certain line in filling out these simple forms. This is certainly trivia, but in the past so much has been construed, I believe correctly so in the majority of cases, to be an indication that the Government is hell-bent on tearing down our Christian society and our Christian way of life. I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction is not included in that group, but there are many members of his Party who have continually indicated that they have no truck with Christianity and that they regard it simply as a burden. We on the Opposition side of the House have adopted the stance that people should be given the choice. I would hope that the Minister recognises the wisdom of that and simply does not allow Party bias and bigotry to override the common sense which I believe he possesses.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) is completely on the wrong tram. It may be offensive for some people to be regarded as Christians or to have to put down on a form what is termed a christian name when they are Moslem, Jewish, agnostic or something else.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I said that.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Yes, but the argument does not apply in reverse. I fail to see how it can be at all repugnant for someone to put down his name as a given name, no matter of what religion he might be. The majority of people in Australia who have a religion would have Christianity as their religion. Christian names are given names. They are Christian names because people are baptised into the Christian religion. I think the argument that a form which includes the words ‘Given Names’ could be repugnant to a Christian person is completely ridiculous. The honourable member for Griffith went on to talk about our way of life and things like that. Members of the Opposition only use these sorts of arguments when it suits them. At the moment they are talking about doing something which I, as a democrat, regard as being quite repugnant. They only use these sorts of rules when it suits them.

I move on to some other matters contained in the Bill. The question of mobile polling booths interests me greatly. I have raised this matter in the House previously and I think it ought to be underlined. My scrutineers noticed at the last election that the postal votes which were cast early, the ones that were organised in hospitals, for example, showed a much greater support for the Liberal Party than would be the case in any subdivision in the whole electorate. The reason is transparently clear. Members of the Liberal Party or people paid by them had gone around the hospitals and organised the votes. I fail to believe that these votes would be any different in normal circumstances from the votes that would apply in the rest of the community. It is my strong belief that many people lodging a postal vote are coerced into voting a certain way. People in hospital also hand over their ballot papers to political organisers and other people who are trusted by the organisers to fill them in. These ballot papers are presented to the various electoral offices as the vote of the individual in hospital. Of course these things are very difficult to prove. If they could be proved the people responsible would be subject to criminal charges. I have no doubt that these sorts of things go on. Why we should not pass a Bill which would allow mobile polling booths and which would allow elections to be conducted by properly authorised officers of the Australian Electoral Office I do not know. It seems to me that there is a great deal of humbug in this matter, and it is something which concerns me greatly.

I think reform is long overdue in the section of the principal Act which refers to unacceptable names. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) in his second reading speech mentioned some of them. It is quite obvious to anybody who looks at the matter that names of candidates can be altered in such a way as to provide some sort of election slogan. I know it is the desire of the Government side of the House to get this Bill to the Committee stage. Having made those points, I will leave my speech at that, but I emphasise that these reforms are long overdue. Any party or parties which say they stand for common justice and a free electoral system ought to support the Bill. I find that many of the arguments put forward by members of the Opposition are quite spurious.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Distribution Commissioners).

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Opposition takes the same view of this clause as it did when the Bill was last in this place. The clause amends section 1 6 of the principal Act to provide that the Minister may engage staff to assist the Distribution Commissioners and that such staff of the Commissioners shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Minister determines. The Opposition believes that staff could be employed by the Commissioners themselves. It was argued during the previous debate on this Bill that that is not possible. I agree that there is some measure of doubt, although I have heard it denied. Even if that is the case I believe there is no reason why the Commissioners cannot draw on the Public Service, as departments do.

Our objection, and the reasons why we take the matter seriously, is that we believe that it is not right for the Minister to come into these matters any more than he has to. I say that because he has the duty to appoint Commissioners, and one expects, as we have always urged, that those appointed should be independent persons and ones about whom no question can be raised. It is important that the staff be impartial and that those appointments have the appearance of impartiality. If the Minister is going to make staff available, then it certainly offends that second limb, that of the appearance of impartiality. We cannot avoid the situation in which there will be a certain suspicion by the parties in Opposition of such appointments of Commissioners and staff; and obviously that ought to be minimised as much as possible. In previous debates I have had something to say in stronger terms about this matter but I will not rake that up on this occasion unless it is necessary. It is the view of the Opposition that the Distribution Commissioners ought to draw on the resources of the Public Service to keep as much as possible an appearance of impartiality. There has been no reference in the speech of the Minister to that issue. He simply asserted his position again in spite of the fact that he would have been aware of the objection which we made when the Bill which contained this provision was previously before the House and the Senate. That is why the Opposition takes a strong view on this clause. The Opposition will vote against the clause.

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

– The Government does not accept that this clause should be deleted. In the present Commonwealth Electoral Act there is a grave and serious deficiency and this amendment which has been proposed by the Government seeks to overcome it. The fact is that, whether the honourable gentleman opposite likes it or not, the Distribution Commissioners are virtually prohibited from having staff to assist them in what is a very onerous, complex and difficult task. I find it absolutely incredible that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) would say on behalf of the Opposition that he will seek to deny and will hope to succeed in denying the Distribution Commissioners such staff assistance as is necessary.

Mr Garland:

– I think we had better have a division.

Mr RIORDAN:

– If the honourable gentleman wants a division we will have a division but the fact is that he is doing a very wrong thing in seeking to inhibit the Distribution Commissioners at any time from giving full effect to their obligations under this statute. At present there is no way in which they can appoint staff. For example, if the Distribution Commissioners wish to have a survey done, if they wish to have some research undertaken or if they wish some person to undertake an examination of various facets or facts which surround a particular proposition, they cannot do it; they have to do it themselves. That seems to me to be a waste of time and a very inefficient way of carrying out a business. It strikes me as being incredible. It is suggested that the Minister has too much power under this proposal but the fact is that somebody has to determine how many people can be employed. There must be some public responsibility for it and some person has to have responsibility for saying how much remuneration or what allowances shall be allowed to such persons as are appointed. If the Minister does not do that I do not know who else would do it. It is all very well to say that he should draw on the Public Service. I would have thought that that proposition was more open to the criticism which the honourable member put forward. In other words, in the Opposition’s view some person from the Minister’s Department or from some other Government department should be appointed. Our way would mean that a person with professional independence was appointed. A person who was appointed to this position and who did not have that quality would undoubtedly soon be the subject of criticism in this place.

Mr Garland:

– You would not have a public service.

Mr RIORDAN:

-I believe the Opposition’s proposal is too narrow. We may want experts from beyond the Public Service.

Mr Garland:

– Is that the intention?

Mr RIORDAN:

– Of course it is the intention to have persons who are experts in their field.

Mr Garland:

– But not in the Public Service.

Mr RIORDAN:

-It does not say that they shall not be in the Public Service.

Mr Garland:

– That is what I am asking you.

Mr RIORDAN:

-I thought the honourable gentleman was saying that we should restrict it to members of the Public Service.

Mr Garland:

– I am curious about what you were just explaining.

Mr RIORDAN:

– If the honourable gentleman is curious I will say it again. I believe the provision as it stands in the Bill would allow the widest possible choice of expert assistance to the Distribution Commissioners at any given time. It is a simple proposition which has a great deal to commend it for the efficient operation of the Distribution Commissioners in their work. There is no plot involved in it. After all, what harm can they do? They will not have any say in what the distribution should be. That is clearly in the hands of the Commissioners and the present statute does not allow them to be given any assistance. It seems to me to be a completely negative and obstructive approach on the part of the Opposition if it is going to oppose a simple proposition of this kind which is designed to give effect to a provision which will allow the Distribution Commissioners to have some assistance.

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

– I should like to support my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) in the discussion as to whether people who are to assist the Distribution Commissioners ought or ought not be members of the Public Service.

Mr Garland:

– He needs it.

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, he does not. He handled the matter very competently but I thought I ought to put the matter in even more simple terms. The facts are that this is a perennial operation and not a continuing one. One needs to be able to recruit staff for an operation which may take 2 months, 3 months, 6 weeks, or 12 months perhaps, although I could not imagine it lasting that long. In my experience of administering a portfolio there is very little flexibility inside departments and inside the Public Service to gather together a number of people, to extract them from their daily devotions and to put them on to a different task. That would certainly apply to the Department which I administer at the moment and it would apply, I should think, throughout the system. Therefore, it is necessary that we create a more flexible arrangement. One of the weaknesses perhaps of the general Public Service system at the moment is our inability to recruit staff for short term positions and short term operations. I think the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) is being unduly suspicious. I cannot understand that. Perhaps he has been associating for too long with the National Country Party and knows what it gets up to in electorates; it is even worse than the Liberal Party.

Mr O’Keefe:

– We must be a great source of concern to you.

Mr BRYANT:

-The Distribution Commissioners need this kind of support in making arrangements about staffing. They need to have the flexibility that applies to Ministers and even to members themselves; that is, we get staff from where we can for the job that we require them to do. I hope that the Opposition will see the sense of that. I could take up the remarks made by the honourable member in the Country Party corner but I recognise that that would be out of order and irrelevant at this stage because when it comes to the sort of discussion that we are having about distributions on fair and equitable terms the Country Party really does not understand the issue.

Question put-

That clause 6 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 59

NOES: 57

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 7 agreed to. Clause 8.

Section 3 1 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘ Christian ‘ and substituting the word ‘ given ‘.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I move:

I referred to this clause when I spoke in the second reading debate. The Government proposes in this clause to omit the word ‘Christian’ and to substitute the word ‘Given’. The Opposition believes that while there is some argument in favour of what the Government is proposing an alternative ought to be provided so that the clause will relate to Christian or given names. If our proposal is adopted other amendments will be moved. I foreshadow consequential amendments to clauses 27, 30 and 32. 1 do not imagine, as this matter was debated during the second reading stage, that there is a great need to elaborate on the reasons for the amendment.

I think that some of the arguments used by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) were valid. However, he failed to answer the proposition that the clause ought to contain an alternative and not refer exclusively to a given name, as is intended. As it was indicated to me earlier that it would not be in accordance with proceedings to move all my amendments together, I will at this stage speak only to the amendment to clause 8 and will perhaps deal with the others as appropriate later. The Government, as was said by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), seems to have a great desire to remove from its forms and its Acts any reference to the Christian religion which, of course, is overwhelmingly the religion of most citizens of Australia. I conclude by drawing attention to the situation that applies with regard to the Government’s income tax returns. We think that the practice applied to those forms ought to be standardised throughout the community. Therefore we put this amendment with some force.

Mr RIORDAN (Phillip)-Minister for Housing and Construction) (12.49)- The Government does not accept the proposed amendment. It persists with its Bill. I find the argument in favour of making provision for both given and Christian names in the Bill somewhat ludicrous to put it frankly. I remind honourable gentlemen that the essence of Christianity is not served by simply putting in an electoral Act the words ‘Christian name’. Those who seek to uphold these principles might be better advised to go a little deeper into the matter and perhaps look to see whether or not character assassination and misleading statements might not be more offensive to those who uphold Christianity than the question of simply changing the first name definition from Christian name to given. I believe the argument the Opposition puts is rooted in hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that in the Australian community there are many faiths and many religions. With the advent of the current Government people from many different parts of the world have come to Australia. They will increasingly accept citizenship in Australia and they will increasingly seek to enrol on the electoral rolls. Many of these people are from nonChristian countries, if I could put it that way, and we ought to recognise that not everybody in the Australian community upholds the Christian view, even formally. There are many people who do not uphold it at all. There are many people who believe in Buddhism, in Judaism and in Islam to name a few. There are many who have no religion at all. Civil laws ought to recognise that a pluralistic society accepts that there will be many different religions. I believe this to be a proposal which should not receive a great deal of consideration.

Surely honourable gentlemen opposite have seen immigration forms from various countries around the world when they have travelled, as many of them have done and do extensively, where the first name is described as the given name. Surely honourable members opposite understand that there is a family name or a surname, as we sometimes call it, and that there is a given name which may be a Christian or a nonChristian name. Let us look at the definition of Christian name. It is generally believed to be the name given to a person at the time of a christening or baptism.

Mr Garland:

– We want both.

Mr RIORDAN:

-The Opposition wants both. Of course to have both, Christian or given name, is a contradiction. A given name can be a Christian name or it can be a non-Christian name.

Mr Garland:

– It is the exclusive use of the word ‘or’.

Mr RIORDAN:

– No, it is not the exclusive use of the word ‘or’ at all. It is a question of whether honourable members intend to say to people that, if they do not have a Christian name, they should not put down a given name. That is one interpretation. What if a person has a surname and a non-Christian name? There is provision only for people to register their given names if they are Christian. Honourable members want to say ‘given or Christian’ to indicate that there is some significant difference between the two -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There is.

Mr RIORDAN:

-There is no difference at all. A Christian name is a given name. A given name is not necessarily a Christian name. The fact of the matter is that a Christian name is a given name. It is a name given by parents. It is not a family name; it is a given name. But the given name need not necessarily be a Christian name. I do not want to engage in personalities by calling through the list because there may be many members in this House, or several at any rate, who do not have Christian names. There are some who are not Christian. In fact there are many people in our community, and a growing number, who are not of Christian beliefs. There is no reason why they should be discriminated against. I would have hoped that the Opposition would have more important and more significant suggestions to make in terms of electoral reform than this one.

Question put:

That the clause proposed to be omitted (Mr Garland’s amendment) stand pan of the Bill.

The Committee divided. . (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 59

NOES: 55

Majority…… . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.1 5 p.m.

Clause 13.

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

Penalty: $10. ‘(4) Where a person who is enrolled for a Subdivision by virtue of this section commences to live at an address in that Subdivision within a period of 1 month after returning to Australia, sub-section (3) does not require him or her to notify the Registrar for the Subdivision of any other address in Australia at which he or she lived during that period. ‘(6) Where a person who is enrolled by virtue of this section by reason only of being the spouse of a person changes his or her place of living to an address other than the place of living of his or her spouse, the first-mentioned person shall, on the expiration of the period of 1 month thereafter, unless during that period, he or she has resumed living with his or her spouse, cease to be entitled to have his or her name retained on any Roll by virtue of being the spouse of that person. ‘(11) The reference in paragraph (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) to a public authority is a reference to any public authority constituted by or under any law of Australia or of a State or internal Territory and, for the purposes of that paragraph, a person who constitutes, or is a member, officer or employee of, such an authority shall be deemed to be in the service of that authority.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I move:

  1. 1 ) In proposed section 4 1A ( 1 ), omit paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), substitute the following word and paragraph: ‘and (b) has left, and is living outside, Australia, but has a fixed intention of returning to Australia and of living within a Subdivision, ‘
  2. In proposed section 41a(1), omit ‘or the spouse of such a person who is living with that person, ‘.
  3. In proposed section 4 1 a ( 1 ), omit ‘or her’.
  4. In proposed section 41 a ( 1 ), omit ‘or she’.
  5. 5 ) In proposed section 4 1 a ( 2 ), omit ‘or she ‘.
  6. In proposed section 41 a (3) (b), omit ‘or her’.
  7. In proposed section 41 a (3) (b), omit ‘or she’.
  8. In proposed section 41 a (3), omit ‘or she’.
  9. In proposed section 41 a (4), omit ‘or her’.
  10. 10) In proposed section 41A (4), omit ‘or she’.
  11. Omit subsection (6) of proposed section 41 a.
  12. Omit subsection (11) of proposed section 4 1 a.

Clause 1 3 provides for a new section in the Bill to enable a person who is posted overseas in the service of Australia, a State or a public authority to enrol in respect of his overseas address. The effect of this provision is that such a person, who would otherwise not be entitled to have his name retained on the roll, would be entitled to enrolment for the subdivision to which he has a fixed intention of returning but in respect of his overseas address.

Provision has also been made to cover the enrolment of the spouses of persons entitled to enrolment by virtue of that section. Further provision has been made to cover changes of address and for the machinery to maintain the role in respect of persons who secure enrolment under the proposed new section. Sub-clause (11) defines ‘public authority’. The Opposition’s objection to this clause is that it does not go far enough and really represents an unfair amendment to the Act. The Opposition believes that the Act should be amended so that it applies to any person who has left Australia with the intention of returning, not just to a person who is a public servant or who is employed by a public authority.

The Opposition’s amendment on those lines was rejected previously by the Government as being too wide in scope. The reason why it was too wide was not given. The Government maintains that employees of the state would be overseas for three or four years, but the Opposition’s amendment would cover absences overseas for an unlimited period. Of course many private employees and others go overseas for limited periods. So the principle involved is this: If it is good enough for one category of citizens to have this right, it must be appropriate that the right be available to all. As I have mentioned, the clause requires certain consequential amendments which need not be detailed. They are amendments (2) to ( 12) which I have moved. The argument in relation to this matter was carried on when a similar Bill- the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill- was debated in April of this year and in November of last year. As I have said earlier, the Government has seen fit to re-introduce it in this dessicated form, with no fewer than 6 Bills. But this provision is the same and no argument has been offered by the Government as to why it should not be enlarged in the way in which the Opposition suggests. It must be seen as part of the attempt by the Australian Labor Party to change the electoral laws and boundaries in its own favour. There cannot be any rational reason for the provision being restricted. The Opposition has moved its amendments in order to widen the provision.

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

– The Government does not accept the proposed amendments and adheres to its original proposal. The Government’s proposal is that where a person in the employment of Australia, a State or some public authority is sent overseas in the service of Australia, the authority or the State, he and his spouse are entitled to retain their enrolment and voting rights. As the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) said, the Opposition’s proposal would mean that everyone and anyone going abroad for any period, no matter how limited or unlimited that may be, would be entitled to remain enrolled and to vote in parliamentary elections. One might take the view that a person who was abroad for 20 years would still be entitled to vote even though he were not in the service of Australia. I think that there is a clear difference between those who are abroad in the service of Australia, a State or a public authority and those who are abroad for their own personal or private reasons. Of course, those who are abroad now are not necessarily denied the right to vote. That right is guaranteed under the other provisions of the Act. But where a person is overseas for an extended period he does not have that right.

The proposal of the Opposition concerning a person who has a fixed intention of returning to Australia and of living within a subdivision is far too wide. The Government believes that it would be open to abuse. The honourable member for Curtin also said that this is another example of the Government’s seeking to amend the law to suit itself. That is a grossly improper thing to say. He has said it several times and I cannot allow it to continue to be said without challenge. In this particular clause the Government is seeking to facilitate the rights of certain citizens to vote in parliamentary elections. The many amendments to these Bills- particularly to this Bill- seek to assist in the democratic procedure of conducting elections. The obvious proposal which comes from the honourable member is that the more voting is facilitated, the more people are able to vote, the easier it becomes to cast a vote, the fewer informal votes there are, the more this will assist the Government That may well be true, but it is also true that to facilitate the expression of opinion by electors is basic to the democratic concept. It is just as logical for me to say that what he is putting forward is that he is seeking to make it harder, that he is seeking to subvert the democratic process, that he does not really want an expression of majority rule, that he wants a manipulated result whereby the Opposition parties can scramble back into government. It is a forlorn hope. I am sorry to disappoint him. That is a very long way off.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) has put forward a curious set of arguments. If he examines my amendments- I hope that he has read them- he will see that it is the Opposition’s intention to widen the provision. What the Goverment is seeking to do is to say: ‘If you are in the government service abroad you can have a vote’.

Mr Riordan:

– It goes further than that. It says ‘the service of the Crown’.

Mr GARLAND:

– It says ‘the service of the Crown’. The Minister used the phrase ‘in the government service’ three or four times so I think that we can take it that that accords with his reading now of a line of the Bill. The Minister says that people who are not in the service of the Crown- in the government service- should not have a vote. So the Minister is the one who is restricting it, not 1. 1 think that that argument can be put to rest. I do not know how the Minister can argue that because somebody is working for the Government he is in a superior position to somebody who is abroad for other reasons. Perhaps there was a clue in the phrase which the Minister used- I wrote it down- ‘others overseas for personal and private reasons’. Of course, a lot of people go overseas to work on behalf of Australian employers. Are we to take the view that if people work for the Government somehow they are superior to those who work for the private sector? I would have thought that that was a very surprising argument to put forward. So far from seeking to restrict, we are seeking to broaden it. We recognise that people overseas with the intention of returning to Australia have an argument about voting. In fact it is an argument I have often put myself and, I think, in this House. It is silly to confine this to a few.

Reference was made to somebody being overseas for 20 years but when we hear weak arguments being put up it indicates that the speaker does not have much confidence in what is being said. I suggest that if somebody is overseas for 20 years he would have a good deal of trouble convincing people that he had a fixed intention of returning. He might, in a rare case, be able to convince somebody and if that is so I would say his name should go on the roll. However, questions like that have to be determined like questions or residency do under other Acts. To mention an important case, residency is very important under the income tax legislation and it is a question of fact which in the last analysis has to be determined by the circumstances. There are no arbitrary rules. So it would be in this case and somebody will have to make a judgment about whether a person has a fixed intention of returning. If he does have such an intention I think we can regard him as an Australian with a right to vote. That is what this is all about. I am seeking to broaden the Bill in order to cover people in wider categories than those in the service of the government or the Crown. We have heard from the Minister for Housing and Construction no argument that really meets that objection and answers in any way the thrust of the argument I have put forward.

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

– I want to make it clear that it is not a question of seeking to have some persons superior to others. It is simply a question of whether those who are abroad as part of their public duty should be given a right to vote. That is the Government’s proposal. We see this proposal by the Opposition as being far too wide and being open to abuse. That is why we oppose it.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Garland’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 56

NOES: 59

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 24- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 24a.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I move:

After clause 24, insert the following new clause: ‘24a. After section 88 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: ‘88a ( 1 ) The Divisional Rewriting Officer for each Division that exceeds 260 000 square kilometres in area shall keep a register, to be called the Register of General Postal Voters. ‘(2) Where a person is enrolled as an elector for a Division referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), otherwise than by virtue of section 39a or 41a, and is it normally difficult for him to vote at a polling booth open in the State for which he is enrolled by reason of-

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

the lack of adequate means of transport from that address to that place, he may at any time make an application in writing to the Divisional Returning Officer to be registered on the register for the Division. ‘(3) An application shall be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and shall set out the name and address of the applicant and the grounds of the application. ‘(4) Upon receipt of the application, the Divisonal Returning Officer shall-

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

b ) if he decides otherwise- reject the application, and shall notify the applicant in writing accordingly. ‘(5) Subject to sub-section (6), the Divisional Returning Officer may at any time cancel the registration of an elector under this section, and in that event (except where the elector is deceased) he shall notify the elector in writing. ‘(6) The Divisional Returning Officer is not empowered to register an elector or (except where the elector is deceased) cancel the registration of an elector under this section after 6 o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ, and before the close of the poll, for an election. ‘(7) An elector who is registered under this section is, by force of this section, but subject to Part VI and to the regulations, entitled to vote at an election in accordance with this Part. ‘(8) As soon as practicable after the hour of nomination for an election the Divisional Returning Officer shall send a postal vote certificate and a postal ballot-paper or postal ballot-papers, as the case requires, to each elector who is registered on the register for the Division, other than an elector who has made an application under section 85. ‘. ‘.

This clause would insert into the Act a provision to assist those living in remote areas to lodge postal votes. The Opposition feels strongly about this matter. It was put forward in the debate on the relevant clause of the Bill debated in this Parliament in, I think, April of this year. I shall read the initial part of the amendment to clause 24 in order to put the concept into the minds of those following the debate. It reads: 24a. After section 88 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:

  1. 1 ) The Divisional Returning Officer for each Division that exceeds 260 000 square kilometres in area shall keep a register, to be called the Register of General Postal Voters.

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

    1. the distance between the address in respect of which he is enrolled and the nearest place in the Division that is normally appointed a polling place; or
    2. the lack of adequate means of transport from that address to that place, he may at any time make an application in writing to the Divisional Returning Officer to be registered on the register for the Division.

I will not read the rest of the machinery part of that proposed new section. The parts I have read are at the core of the argument. It is really something of a surprise to the Opposition that the Government resists this amendment as strongly as it does. We have heard in several debates that the Government wishes to facilitate the voting by people at election time, yet so many of its proposals are to restrict it in terms of time or postal votes generally- we will come to that matter when we deal with the next Bill- and in terms of that clause which we last debated providing some people who are living overseas with the right to vote. Here we have a solution to the problem which many country people have. They live a long way from the polling booth.

Mr Kelly:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GARLAND:

-I am glad to have the interjection of the honourable member for Wakefield, some of whose electors live in places which are very far removed from polling booths. I know that he has taken a close interest in the matter. The other day he was rather critical of the responsible Minister for closing booths and making it even harder for a group of people to vote who I think live 260 miles- or perhaps kilometres- from the next booth.

Mr Kelly:
Mr GARLAND:

-Two hundred and sixty miles. It seems to be a course of conduct by the Government that it wishes to make it more difficult for people to vote and to restrict the availability of booths for people, yet at the same time insists that voting is compulsory. With regard to the problem of postal voting, we have provisions in the Act which provide for a procedure which is rather slow moving. Voters have to fill in an application form which has to go into an office. The form has to be checked and ballot papers have to be sent out through the mail. The people have to vote and their vote has to go back through the mail. This is all done within a time limit. Of course with the Post Office as it is- I do not want to be too rude about its operations but it is common knowledge that some of its transportation of votes is a bit slow- and with the understandable congestion in an electoral office whilst an election is being conducted, I suppose it is not possible to process all of these applications and to sent out ballot papers the very next day. In some electorates there have been instances of postal vote envelopes somehow being put on the wrong trains and being sent in the wrong direction. Surely there is a need for something to be done about this situation. If the Government will not do anything about it, it can only be because it thinks there is party political advantage in not improving the system. We are saying that people should be able to be on a remote area’s roll and that there ought to be facilities for making sure that those people get to vote.

I sometimes am struck by the number of Labor members whose electorates are in the city. Of course some are in the country. It will be interesting to see how they vote on this matter. If one lives in the city one may well think: ‘Well, the postman passes the door every day and really if the mail has to be used 3 times to record a postal vote what will not be any great inconvenience in the 3 or 4 weeks that it will involve’. But in many remote areas- I am not just thinking of areas as remote as the electorates of Grey or Kalgoorliepeople who firmly wish to cast a valid note have great difficulty in lodging it. We all heard earlier the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) who has a city electorate. He said that no one has complained about the matter. Of course they have complained about it. He simply has not read Hansard.

If all the postal votes had been received in time at the last election for the seat of Kalgoorlie, who could say whether its representative would have been the man who is sitting in this chamber today? There were a great number of postal votes that were received and were not counted. Perhaps I could be forgiven for saying that that is a strange thing, but that is only one electorate. Some of the postal vote applications and the votes sent out in envelopes were put on the wrong train and went to the wrong village. It is a circumstance which makes even careful people a little suspicious. We will be making an appeal- I make it today but the debate is not being broadcast today- to people in remote areas who want to get rid of this Government to go and vote. Whether they drive, ride, walk or crawl they should get there and lodge a valid vote because one cannot be sure of the postal voting system operating efficiently, even if one does everything that one can in order to lodge a valid vote. I make that appeal to them and perhaps it will be continued by others on other occasions.

People in remote areas have a right to vote as much as the next man. They are being deprived of that right under the existing circumstances. Certainly in the last general election in May 1974, there were many hold-ups and many delays and complaints about insufficient staff and things of that sort which, in the heat of an election campaign, cannot be dealt with. There is evidence; there is plenty of evidence. No doubt the Government could get lists from the Electoral Office of the votes that were subsequently received but which could not be counted because the time had expired. We will see that in the next Bill the Government wants to restrict that time limit.

Mr Kelly:

– Unbelievable.

Mr GARLAND:

– It does seem unbelievable. The Government wants to restrict that time limit so that more and more votes will be declared invalid. So much for the Government’s motives in this area. With regard to the remarks of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, I say that when someone uses spurious arguments, I suppose it indicates the value of the provision. He said: ‘Oh, we cannot have a special provision for one lot of people. How bad it would be if we had one for blacks, one for Catholics and so on. It would be used for other purposes’. He really said that in this chamber this morning. Of course if Government supporters cannot see the sense of having a register to help people to vote, I suppose we have little chance of convincing them. I have moved my amendment. The arguments are there. If necessary, I will add to my remarks later.

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

– The Government opposes the amendment. We oppose the amendment because we believe that it introduces provisions which would be open to abuse and could result in fraud.

Mr Garland:
Mr RIORDAN:

– I will tell the honourable member for Curtin how. There is no provision in the amendment which in any way places an obligation on a person, having been removed from the register, to notify of a change of address. It could facilitate impersonation. A person might move from the address for which he is registered and some other person who may not even be enrolled could be at that address. It could be that a person who is not entitled to be enrolled could be at that address. The fact that somebody applies once and satisfies the returning officer once that he is entitled to a postal vote does not necessarily mean that that will be so in the future. Section 85 is specific and it has been for very many years in restricting the right of postal voting. It is restricted for good reason; that is, because postal voting is open to abuse. Successive governments have decided, wisely in my view, to ensure that postal voting be kept to those circumstances and cases where people would otherwise be deprived of the right to vote. Any person who is residing a long way from a polling place is entitled to apply. It is well known. It is advertised at every election. There is no reason to suggest that a person who lives some distance from a polling place cannot apply for a postal vote.

Mr Garland:

– That is a city argument.

Mr RIORDAN:

– It is not a city argument.

Mr Garland:

– Of course it is.

Mr RIORDAN:

– It is not. The fact is that people living in the city happen to go to country areas, or did the honourable member not know that? That is one reason why people apply for postal votes. I can remember when I narrowly lost an election in 1969 because an extraordinary number of absentee votes came in from a place called Werris Creek which everybody knows is a little railway town in the north-west of New South Wales, not known as a place to which people from Bondi go for their annual holidays. Nevertheless, these votes all turned up and honourable members would be surprised at the way they went. At any rate, I do not want to go too far into that except to say there is the prospect of impersonation of voters under the present electoral system and this proposition which is put forward now by the Opposition would make this easier. I will give the honourable member for Curtin good advice. We are not having this proposal. We will not have it. We will oppose it. The person who has a legitimate reason to vote by post can make an application and that application will be facilitated. The proposition put forward by the Opposition is open-ended- open-ended in the extreme. It would mean that a person having once got himself on to the register of postal voters would be entitled to stay there almost forever until the returning officer found some reason to take him otT it

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is not quite correct. He has to sign a form stating that the conditions which existed do in fact exist.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Yes, once.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Every time.

Mr RIORDAN:

-When he makes a declaration. That is what I am concerned about. In fact, that leaves the way open for impersonation. I believe it is fair to say that on world standards the present provisions for postal voting are very generous and they should not be made more generous. I believe the Opposition’s amendment should be rejected.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-I can only say that having heard the remarks of the Minister my worst fears are realised in respect of this matter. Let me examine the arguments that were used. Firstly, we are told that if we have this proposed register it will be open to a good deal of abuse. It is said that there may be unnotified changes of addresses and there may be impersonations. We know the old jingle ‘vote early and vote often’.

Mr Riordan:

– You practise it.

Mr GARLAND:

-I think the Minister ought to be a bit more moderate than that. I do not practise it. I am saying that provision is made in the Electoral Act to cover people who commit these sorts of offences. In that regard there is nothing special about the register that we propose. If people commit offences in respect of addresses, impersonations and so on, penalties are provided in the legislation, but I am advised- if the contrary is the situation perhaps we will be toldthat very few people commit these offences. I am not aware that the number of people involved is great. If there are a large number then there needs to be a tightening up of the provisions relating to registration on all rolls. What we are talking about is having a separate register for people who are placed in great difficulties in lodging a valid vote.

Mr Young:

– Hitler used to have it.

Mr GARLAND:

– Hitler used to have it? I am afraid I just cannot follow the logic of that comment. What the Opposition is seeking is that in addition to the present roll in respect of which people have to apply for registration and so on there should be another roll or register with the same particulars, no more no less, indicating that the people live in remote areas. There is provision, which I did not read in full, for the electoral officer to check the bona fides of persons and no doubt he would have to continue to do that. We know that at any election there always is a number of errors on the roll. An enormous number of changes are made to the roll, far more than most people realise and even in respect of people who live in closely settled areas. At any particular time it is not possible to have the roll 100 per cent accurate, but I believe that most electoral rolls are accurate to a large degree. No doubt any remote areas register would be kept in exactly the same way as are the present rolls and of course there would be far fewer people enrolled than there would be on the main roll, so that argument is a spurious one.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) put up some argument about what happened in his electorate with absentee votes. We are not talking about absentee votes. An absentee vote is a vote lodged by someone who on the day is in a different electorate than the one for which he is enrolled. Such a person lodges the vote out of his electorate. He goes through a special procedure because not every electorate or polling booth has a complete list of persons entitled to vote. If there is any impropriety- to put it mildly- involved in respect of the result which the Minister spoke of, then he should take the matter further, but it has nothing to do with what we are speaking about. We are speaking about postal votes.

Let me come to the gravamen of the whole business. He said there is adequate avenue for people to lodge a postal vote. A person has to fill in an application form. In many cases it has to be posted to Electoral Office because it cannot be taken a long distance by hand. The Ballot papers have to be posted out. The papers have to be marked and then posted back. I said by interjection that the Minister’s argument is that of a city man. The papers are sent back and forth 3 times, which is too much, and we should bear in mind the existing position with mail deliveries and also the remoteness of some electors from polling booths. Let us face it, the slowness of mail deliveries is getting worse and worse so it has particular importance now as against earlier elections in which I suppose the smaller volume of mail, to put the most charitable interpretation upon it, ensured that people had a greater chance of getting their postal vote in before the time limit had expired. The position is getting worse and worse and I believe that the figures for the last election will show that to be the position. There is enough of this happening- that is to say people being unable to lodge valid votes, to demonstrate the need for amendment to the law.

In summary I say that the argument that somehow or another this proposed register will be more capable of manipulation than the main roll is invalid. The argument put on absentee votes is invalid. The argument that there is enough time to apply for a postal vote and always to cast a vote no matter where a person is living is also invalid.

Question put:

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Garland’s amendment) be so inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 56

NOES: 59

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 25 to 27- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 27a.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Amendment No. 16 which proposes to insert after clause 27 a new clause 27a is consequential on amendment No. 2 proposed to clause 8 which was put and which was defeated. I move:

After clause 27, insert the following new clause: - ‘27a. Section 106 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (b), after the word “christian” (wherever occurring), the words “or given “. ‘.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29.

After section 1 1 3 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:- ‘ 1 13a ( 1) Where a hospital is a polling place, the presiding officer may make arrangements with an appropriate person, or appropriate persons, on the staff of the hospital for the votes of patients in the hospital or in part of the hospital to be taken in accordance with this section. ‘ ( 5 ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act-

  1. a polling booth shall not be provided at a special polling place; and
  2. votes may be taken under this section at a special polling place at such time or times as the presiding officer determines, being a time or times between 8 o’clock in the morning and 6 o’clock in the evening on polling day or on one or more of the 5 days preceding polling day, and at no other time.
Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Amendment No. 17 circulated in my name is consequential on amendments proposed to Electoral Bill (No. 5) which was carried yesterday. Therefore I do not pursue the matter. I move:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30.

Section 1 14 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘christian name and surname’ and substituting the words ‘given name or names and place of living as appearing on the roll ‘.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtain

– I move:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 1 agreed to.

Clause 32.

Section 1 16 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘christian name’ (wherever occurring) and substituting the words ‘ given name ‘.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I move:

As with an amendment proposed to a previous clause, this amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 2, which has already been discussed, being accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 56- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Schedule 1

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

– I move:

I have circulated the amendment to Schedule 1 on page 25 of the Bill to omit the proposed repeal of section 212 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The position is that the Postal and Telecommunications Commission (Transitional Provisions) Act 1975, which was assented to on 12 June 1975, contains in Schedule 2 a similar amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in respect of the repeal of section 212. This amendment came into operation on 1 July 1975. Consequently the repeal of section 212 has already been effected.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

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

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

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Riordan)- by leaveread a third time.

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 7) 1975 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Daly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-This Bill is the last of 6 Electoral Bills presented to the House at this time. The provisions of the 6 Bills are the same as the provisions of a Bill which was debated in this House in November last year and April this year; so we again have all of them in front of us for the third time. The arguments are reasonably well known. However the reason for putting the provisions forward now in 6 separate Bills has not been given by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly). Indeed, by his silence, he has refused to give it. The Opposition has suggested several times that it should be disclosed. The Minister came into the House on 28 August with 6 Bills and read 6 speeches. The

speech on this Bill covers a few pages of Hansard. The Bill purports to be some sort of reform of the electoral system, which is an Australian Labor Party euphemism for changing the law in its favour.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) earlier in the day mentioned that all Bills, including this Bill, were related to one another and said that the Opposition had refused a cognate debate. He tried to imply that there had been some reprehensible conduct on the part of the Opposition. Of course it was the Government that decided to split the matters contained in this Bill from those in the other Bills. It was the Government that made 6 speeches. So the Opposition believes that it should state its position in relation to the provisions of the Bill so that they can be recorded for those interested in these matters and so we can reaffirm our view, after- of course considering the matters that are put forward.

There were in the previous Bill provisions on which there was no disagreement. Of course the Opposition was not entirely in agreement with the Bill because it had to move a number of amendments, but a number of provisions were agreed to. There were one or two minor items in some of the other Bills with which we agreed but because they were mixed up with other provisions, in our view deliberately by the Government, we could hardly delete 90 per cent of the Bill. It made it difficult for us to vote for the Bill. In the speeches I made then and in the speech I made on this Bill the Opposition’s arguments and disagreement with the major portion of this legislation have been made clear.

This Bill includes a number of items. I suppose it deals mainly with postal voting. Provisions relating to postal voting are contained in clauses 5 to 10 and 12 to 14, which the Opposition has opposed previously. Clause 3 deals with the appointment of Distribution Commissioners to draw up electoral boundaries. Clause 4 deals with objection to names on the roll, clause 15 deals with various articles by editors and proprietors of newspapers, and clause 1 1 deals with the questions to be put to the voter when he is receiving his ballot paper. The Bill also gives prisoners sentenced to less than one year’s imprisonment the right to apply for a postal vote. That was not opposed by the Opposition previously.

As practically all of the Bill is not supported by the Opposition, rather than go through the lengthy business of attempting amendment we propose to oppose the whole Bill. I put forward that explanation as to why we have reached that decision. If the Government had not included in this Bill items which it knows we agree with- it knows because we have debated the matter twice in the House and twice in the Senate previously, although not in the form of the present Bill- then it would have been an easy matter. The question arises as to why the Government is fiddling about with these provisions for the third time when so many serious problems are facing the country. Of course the package of proposals which were in the one Bill before and are in 6 Bills now are there, in the main, to aid the fortunes of the Australian Labor Party at election time. The way its stocks are at the moment I suppose it will need all the assistance it can get. The Minister in his speech on this Bill- I might add a highly political speech -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Terrible.

Mr GARLAND:

– It was a terrible speech. The time was when Ministers in this place, even on matters that were highly controversial, would introduce a Bill with a second reading speech which was reasonably low key, free of abuse and put a view calmly as the considered view of the Government. That in recent years has gone by the board and the speeches made by the Minister on the Electoral Bills are sprinkled with abuse and epithets. I believe the second reading speech on this Bill is no exception. Let me take up some of the arguments that have been put by the Minister. He put forward, I think as his major argument- at any rate, it was the first one- that the provisions of this Bill would result in speedier finalisation of election results. As one had to argue in speaking to a Bill yesterday, it is only of advantage to get a quicker result if the result is a fair one, if it really expresses the intentions of the people of Australia. The fact that it takes a bit longer to count and there is a little more inconvenience to officers of the Australian Electoral Office, who after all are paid to do the job, is really of small consequence against what is intended, which is to find the intention of the people as expressed through their votes in the ballot box. So that is a pretty weak argument to begin with.

The Minister proposes to do 2 things in respect of postal votes. I talked about postal votes and particularly the needs of people in the remote regions a little earlier. The Minister proposes to restrict the time within which postal votes may be received. In other words, he is going to disfranchise a certain number of people who for one reason or another, sometimes because they live a long way from a postal polling place, will not be able to lodge their vote by a certain time. He is going to restrict a certain number of them, and their votes are going to be invalid. That is the direct consequence of what is being done here, and I believe it is being done deliberately because the Government has come to the conclusion that by and large those postal votes that come in late do not favour it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Hear, hear.

Mr GARLAND:

-Therefore the more the Government can cut down these votes the better. We will be seeing more of what the Government intends to do in some detail in a moment. I was pleased to hear agreement from the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) because I know that he among many members here is very knowledgeable in the field of postal votes. I notice from looking at election results that he seems to find at the time these votes are counted that he is very popular with the majority of people who vote in this manner. His popularity is well deserved, and all praise to him for that. I think most honourable members would regard him as an authority on this matter, and I look forward to his intervention in this debate in a little while.

The provision relating to objection to names on the roll is perhaps a curious one. One can argue, and perhaps we will hear this argument a little later, that with inflation all penalties and fees in Acts ought to be increased. However, on consideration, we believe that in this area a stringent penalty ought not be provided for. If one knows of names on the roll that can be questioned, why should the fee become greater? We are not very impressed with that provision and believe that it ought not be pursued. That is one of the reasons why we will vote against the Bill.

I turn to the major objections in a little more detail. Firstly, clause 5 deals with postal vote applications. Under this Bill the latest time that which an application may be received is to be 6 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the poll instead of 6 p.m. on the day before, the Friday. That will have the consequence of cutting out a few people, and we do not believe that change ought to be made. Far more serious than that is clause 10 which provides that postal votes need to be received by the divisional returning officer by the close of the poll; that is to say, 8 p.m. on polling day or, as the Government would like, 6 p.m. We oppose that change. That will have the effect of making invalid a significant number of postal votes. Some people may be overseas; many are in remote regions. Let us be blunt about the mattersome people rather neglect to go on with their applications as soon as an election is called but they become aware of the situation in the last few days. The present situation is that we have up to 10 days after polling day to get postal votes in. That is a lengthy time which, even taking account of the present breakdown in postal services which is experienced in many regions, is a reasonable time. But the Government does not want that; it wants to eliminate the effectiveness of as many postal votes as it can. What is its argument? It gets a quicker result.

Of course not a lot of election results depend on postal votes. Some of them do. When they do, surely to heaven the aim should be to provide as great an opportunity as possible for electors on a particular roll to express their view and to cast their votes. So there is no need to cut them off in this way. It would be a large restriction and would cut out 10 days for those who have to vote through the mail to have their votes recorded. The vote must be received by that time and not simply postmarked before that time or anything of that kind. The call for a quicker result is a bit hollow because there are other ways, if the Government wants to do it, of getting the counting done. America and other countries have experimented in these areas. The Government is not proposing anything of that kind. It is just pointing to a few things which will help it and which will, in this case, disfranchise people to a greater degree because of the present postal system. There are two limbs to that argument. Firstly, there is the earlier closing off of applications but, secondly and more importantly, there is the earlier time by which votes have to be received before they can be counted.

This is a compulsory system. The Government wants that compulsory system to be universal. Obviously from the intention of this proposal it wants it to be compulsory for some and to disfranchise others. Many votes are now received after polling day and 3 weeks, which is the time between nomination day and polling day, is not very long. Until nominations close, ballot papers cannot be printed because the names or the number of candidates are not known with certainty. So no applications for a postal vote can be answered before that date. The Government has called for a restriction of that period. Considering that it is compulsory to vote and that many people in the community are not following political affairs as closely as we in this House do, it can take those people a little while to realise that they are in a period in which they must act reasonably quickly. I believe 3 weeks is too short a period.

An important exception is the position of those in remote regions, although I do not confine my argument entirely to that. There is no doubt that remote areas in this country are very poorly serviced by facilities for postal voting or, for that matter, by application forms, which are a little harder to get than some people who are involved in the electoral process seem to believe. Of course if those people cannot get an application form it costs them a vote. I do not think I have to make more than a passing point that some electorates cover very wide areas. I believe the laws have the right to make available to people as great a facility as possible to lodge a vote through the mail if they conform to the conditions of the application. That is all provided in the law so there is no particlar difficulty there. It was suggested by an earlier speaker that there is a great deal of abuse of this system. Any system will have a modicum of abuse, and I suggest that there is not much abuse in that respect of the Australian electoral system. If the situation is very serious we need to have hard evidence about it and we need to have a tightening up of the whole procedure; but I do not think that is the case. I think that is just an argument that is brought forward because it is so hard to make arguments other than the real one, which is the desire to cut down the number of valid votes which are being cast through the post.

Clause 7 amends section 89 of the Act to provide that a person is not entitled to inspect applications under subsection (3) for the purpose of compiling lists of names of the persons who made postal vote applications except where such a list is genuinely required for the purpose of an inquiry into an alleged breach of the Act or a petition under Part XVIII of the Act. The clause makes it an offence for a person to use a list for reasons other than those. That seems to me to be a curious provision. I remember that when we debated this matter on the last occasion Government members were intent on seeing this as a matter which was creating abuse as though somehow or other there was something wrong with it. The Opposition simply does not believe that there is anything wrong with that practice. Why would it matter if an individual’s application for a postal vote were available for a few days for anybody to read? If a potential political candidate reads it and approaches that person to vote at a subsequent election I do not see that that matters very much, because questions of harassment and other breaches of law involved are another matter and are covered by other legislation.

I have struck many cases, as I am sure all honourable members have, of people welcoming their attention being drawn to the technicalities surrounding polling day and in many cases they regard it as assistance. If they do not so regard it they can simply brush it off, and if they have made up their minds how they are going to vote it is their concern. This appears to be some attempt to inhibit an operation which is widely practised by all parties, and I would have thought it is a practice which cannot be validly criticised at all. I think the imputation that somehow there is something immoral about it is just an attempt to make something where no other argument exists.

Clause 8 omits section 92 of the Principal Act. The effect of the amendment would be that a postal voter would no longer be able to post or deliver his postal vote to a divisional returning officer other than the divisional returning officer for the division in respect of which he is enrolled or to an assistant returning officer or to any presiding officer. The clause would mean that postal votes would have be be delivered or posted direct to the relevant divisional returning officer. At present they can be delivered or posted to a divisional returning officer other than in the division for which an elector is enrolled. The proposal is another restriction and in some cases I think it would lead to more difficulty in the mails. This system would perhaps help a little in the procedures on polling day, but I do not believe, with respect to those who are engaged in administration, that that should be our primary interest. Our primary interest must be that a large degree of convenience is afforded to the public and that the result is the proper interpretation of the valid votes that are cast by people. So, we oppose the provision and say that it is one of those relatively minor matters which would create more irritation and more difficulties for the elector who is compulsorily required to vote and for the elector who wants to vote and who wants to vote validly.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-At the outset I pay tribute to Mr Frank Hey of the Australian Electoral Office and his dedicated staff. His staff have to be dedicated to continue to work within the confines of what is the most complicated and intricate legislation in the world governing elections. I do not think the public really takes enough notice of the extent of work done by the staff of the Australian Electoral Office in providing facilities for 12 hours of voting on election day. I also pay particular tribute to the Divisional Returning Officer in my own electorate of Shortland and to his staff. I repeat that I do not think the public is aware of the very great effort those people make in trying- as the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) said- to facilitate voting and provide convenience to the public on election day.

The honourable member for Curtin put the Opposition’s regard for electoral reform in its proper perspective when he said that he could not understand why the Government is fiddling about with these proposals. Obviously the Opposition regards very necessary and essential electoral reform as fiddling about. As he said, this is the third time these proposals have been introduced. It is the third time because of the Opposition ‘s attitude towards electoral reform. The present difficulties result from the administration of legislation that members of the Opposition developed over a quarter of a century and they have ensured, for the past 2 1/2 years, that it remains the same. The interesting thing, as the honourable member conveniently neglected to mention, is that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), when Minister for the Interior in 1971, recognised that many areas within the Act needed reform but he allowed to lapse the 26 amendments which were comprised in a Bill introduced into this chamber in 1971. So, the Opposition’s attitude to electoral reform is one of deliberate neglect.

These 6 Bills are about equality of opportunity at the ballot box- not only equality of opportunity for the voters but also equality of opportunity for candidates. The legislation is concerned with ensuring that all Australian electors have access to the ballot box and that all Australians, with the proper qualifications, have an opportunity under the same conditions and the same entitlements as anybody else to enter this place or the Senate. One can see from looking at this Bill that the proposals are reasonable and needed. The imperfections in the existing electoral law are not of this Government’s making. We have tried, and this is the third occasion, to remove them. We have tried to help people to vote. We have tried to give them a better and simpler access to voting. Above all we want to ensure that their vote is formal. It is a hypocritical exercise to talk about people voting when the Opposition supports a method of voting that ensures that a large percentage of votes, particularly country votes, are rendered informal. It is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition.

I understand the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) is probably going to follow me in this debate and will talk, I imagine, on electoral booths. It is nonsense to talk about the number of electoral booths if, when the people cast their votes, the votes are then rendered informal by a complicated system of numbering. As I pointed out yesterday on an earlier Bill in this series, the rate of informal Senate voting in country electorates is far higher than in city electorates. I have only to turn to the electorate of Wimmera in Victoria- my friend the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) is not here at the moment- to find that the informal vote in the Senate election last year was 12.1 per cent. I ask honourable members to compare that with an informal vote of 7.9 per cent in Kooyong. The informal vote in the electorate of Bruce was 6.5 per cent as compared with the electorate of Mallee which had an informal vote of 13 per cent. In the electorate of Wakefield the informal vote was 10.5 per cent; it was 9.2 per cent in Kingston and in Angas 11.9 per cent. It is just mouthing words to come into the chamber and to try to put across a case for giving people an entitlement to vote if something is not done about ensuring that the votes that are cast are formal votes.

Let me look at the Bill itself. As mentioned by the honourable member for Curtin, clause 5 provides an opportunity for those people who are in a prison to make application for a postal vote. At the same time it provides for the closing of applications for postal votes at 6 p.m. on the Thursday. There is a very necessary reason for that. In many instances no home deliveries of mail are made on Saturday mornings. Even under the existing legislation there is no provision for people, if an application is received on Friday night, to post it back. If applications are received by the deadline on the Thursday evening they can be put in the mail that evening and be delivered to voters on the Friday. Provision is made for those votes to get back to the booth. Provision still exists for personal applications to be lodged in the office of the divisional returning officer by Friday at 6 p.m. There is still the opportunity for the elector to have his vote delivered to the booth or to the office on the Saturday.

Clause 7 deals with the inspection of postal vote rolls by persons. To me this is a very dubious operation. It opens the door for practices that ought not to be followed. People ought not to be badgered or canvassed. We have heard speakers on both sides of the chamber refer to this over the past Vh years. Even the existing law specifically prohibits the practice, but it still goes on. Members and candidates have prepared lists of past postal voters. They have prepared lists and prepared application forms and these sit in their offices. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) said in this chamber a few weeks ago he went into an office in Brisbane and noted several thousand postal vote application forms already completed and waiting to be posted out. I do not know what office, but the Minister made reference to it in an earlier debate.

The proposition in clause 8 that postal ballot papers be returned to the relevant divisional returning office I think is most reasonable. I do not think it is fair or responsible for anybody to continue to support a system whereby a nation can wait 6 weeks and not know the result of an election. It was almost 6 weeks before the result of the double dissolution last year was known. Members opposite may have a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of operation but it is not in the national interest. A country cannot be governed and cannot plan or develop if it has to wait 6 weeks for a result after an election. If postal vote applications have to be returned to the divisional returning officer by the close of the poll the Electoral Office is given an opportunity to produce a much quicker result but it also gives equality of opportunity for all voters in Australia.

Let us look not at those people who are not able to go along to vote. Let us look at those people who do not wish to attend polling booths. Why should people who do not wish to go along to vote have a longer period to vote than people who attend polling booths to vote? The fact is that when an election is announced the nation is on notice that there is to be an election several weeks later. I do not accept that some people would not know, once an election has been announced, that an election is to be held. It receives the prime news coverage of the time. Coverage of an election is constant.

It is reasonable to expect that, once an election is called, everybody within the nation who is entitled to vote has the same opportunity to vote. To give postal voters considerably longer to vote than is provided to people who attend polling booths is to me to give an advantage to postal voters who sometimes are people who do not wish to attend polling booths. I distinguish between those postal voters who do not wish to attend the polling booth and those who are unable to attend the polling booth.

To say that people are being deprived of a vote by not being able to get postal vote applications returned in time is to put forward an argument that does not stand up to examination. Let us consider the time intervals involved. Immediately an election is announced an application form for a postal vote can be obtained. It is admitted that that application will not be answered until the writs are out. The ballot paper cannot be returned until the nominations have closed. But if we examine the history of previous elections, we find that ample time is provided for postal voting.

The proposition that the present proposal deprives people of an opportunity to vote is a spurious one. Let us look at the law as it now stands. Section 96 of the Electoral Act deals specifically with scrutiny by a divisional returning officer of postal votes, the return of postal votes and the opening of them. Section 96 provides: . . . the Divisional Returning Officer . . . (b) if satisfied that the signature on the certificate is that of the elector who signed the application for the certificate and that the signature purports to be witnessed by an authorised witness, and that the vote contained in the envelope was recorded prior to the close of the poll . . . and so on. There is no evidence at all on which a divisional returning officer can determine when a postal vote was cast. If the postal vote envelope that is eventually returned to him, that is delivered to him, carries a postmark in some cases 2 days or 3 days after the date on which the election was held, there is no way that the divisional returning officer can properly determine when that vote was cast. The Act provides: . . . that the vote contained in the envelope was recorded prior to the close of the poll . . .

That is what the Act prescribes. There is no clear cut way that the divisional returning officer can determine that fact.

Up to some 18 years ago the situation used to be that the divisional returning officer was required to rule as invalid any postal vote envelopes that carried a postmark later than the date on which the election was held. I think that that rule ought still to prevail. Previous governmentsthe Liberal-Country Party governments of the time- changed that requirement to the provision that I have just quoted which says that the divisional returning officer has simply to satisfy himself that the vote was cast prior to the close of the poll.

Speaking to divisional returning officers, one finds that they have differing opinions as to what constitutes evidence that a vote was cast prior to the closing of a poll. My friend, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe), sits opposite. I was a scrutineer with respect to votes cast in his electorate at the last 2 elections.

Mr Lucock:

– No wonder he had trouble.

Mr O’Keefe:

-That was along with 4 other Labor Party members.

Mr MORRIS:

-You are here because of the looseness -

Mr O’Keefe:

– I am here because everything was conducted fairly and squarely.

Mr MORRIS:

-. . . of the Electoral Act which you and your colleagues have preserved and seek still to preserve. You do not want a fair go for voters or candidates. I scrutineered at the last 2 elections, and a large number of -

Mr O’Keefe:

– What about your last count?

Mr MORRIS:

– I am not reflecting on you as a member. I am reflecting on the system. I hope you can draw the distinction. I am not reflecting on you. I am drawing attention to my criticism of the system.

Mr O’Keefe:

– You mentioned me, and you said you scrutineered -

Mr MORRIS:

– I did not mean it in a personal way with respect to you. I did not mean it to be taken that way. Under the system which operated in 1974 and which still continues at present, 1302 postal votes were cast in the electorate of Paterson. Of those votes, 61 per cent went to the successful candidate. The unsuccessful candidate received 36 per cent of those postal votes. I compare that with the 49 per cent cast for each of the candidates by voters at polling booths in that electorate. The interesting point is this: As scrutineers, we had to challenge a considerable number of postal votes that carried postmarks dated several days after the date on which the election was held.

There is no way in which the date when those votes were cast can be determined. I do not believe that all of those votes were cast prior to 8 p.m. on 18 May 1974. A number of those votes were challenged. A number of them were challenged because of the signatures that appeared as witnesses on the envelopes. It was clear in a number of cases that the person who had witnessed the postal vote application and the envelope was also the person who had signed as the elector. We asked that a number of such postal votes be passed on to the Electoral Officer for further investigation.

Looking at the result in the Paterson division in 1974, we find that the majority was 275 votes. If we examine the difference between the percentages of votes cast for each candidate at polling booths and the percentages of votes cast for each candidate through the postal voting system, we find that the margin is sufficient to represent the difference between winning and losing that seat. The net margin was 275 votes. So 53 500 people in the electorate of Paterson voted for one candidate or another and, in a final majority of 275 votes, 140 people by the postal voting method selected the successful candidate. That is no reflection on the honourable member for Patterson. I make that fact quite clear. It is a reflection on the system.

That system itself has been abused. When we look at the results in the 1972 election, we find that a similar situation emerges with respect to that abuse, as revealed by a comparison of the percentages of polling booth votes and postal votes. When we have a system that invites abuse, we come to a proposition such as the one put forward earlier by a spokesman for the Opposition that we ought now to make it easier for people who want to utilise the lurks and perks of the postal voting system and reduce expenditure on election campaigns for the Opposition by providing that the taxpayer finance the preparation of a roll showing those people who vote by post. The system itself is already evil. It is abused. But, on top of that, honourable members opposite want the taxpayer to make the abuse easier still. The system does not provide a fair opportunity for voters. It does not provide a fair opportunity for candidates. Irrespective of who the successful candidates are they ought to have the same opportunity when they go to the ballot box having put their respective policies.

What we have is a system which has been supported for a quarter of a century by the Opposition Parties. Some of the amendments contained in this legislation are amendments that were in the legislation introduced in 1971 but which the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who was then the Minister in charge of these matters, did not seek to pursue in this chamber. The Opposition has not told us why it did not carry through with those proposals. The Opposition will not tell us that, as it knows that the present situation ensures that in country electorates a large proportion of voters cast informal votes for Senate elections.

Honourable members opposite have these people put through the sham of voting. They are dragged along to polling booths or make application for postal votes, worrying about penalties for failing to vote, and cast their votes. All the time, honourable members opposite know full well in their own minds that they are wholeheartedly supporting a method of vote counting that ensures that the informal rate in votes cast by country electors is almost twice the rate of informal votes lodged by city electors. The Opposition Parties deserve to be condemned for this. Members of the Opposition ought to be going back to their country electorates promoting and supporting electoral reform that simplifies electoral legislation, that simplifies the expression of choice by people and that gives Australians a fair go at the ballot box and a fair go as candidates.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will not be as wordy as the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I will endeavour to make my comments straight to the point. First of all, the Opposition has indicated that it will oppose this Bill in its entirety. Let me take one or two of its clauses and explain the reasons why the Opposition has come to this conclusion. Clause 3 of the Bill refers to section 16 of the principal Act and endeavours to alter the composition of the Distribution Commissioners by removing the requirement that one of the three shall be the State Surveyor-General. It provides instead for a surveyor.

Mr Adermann:

– I wonder why.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Fisher says that he wonders why. It is not for me to reflect on what motivates a Minister who is absent because of a family bereavement but I cannot help but look at the record of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) over the last 3 years and at the manner in which he shuffled electoral officers like a pack of cards to ensure a proper redistribution in Western Australia. I am not familiar with the details now because this happened a couple of years ago. There was talk around the place that a bit of hokey-pokey was going on in another State and somebody was promoted. I believe that the Australian Labor Party Government is capable of doing this without quivering. Because it has been corrupt in so many other areas, it follows that it is corrupt in the area of electoral reform. This change is motivated by a desire on the part of the Government to appoint more of its friends as Distribution Commissioners so that it can bring about redistributions which suits its own ends. As it stands at the moment the people of each State are protected because, whether we like it or not, the State Surveyor-General is a person who has been appointed by a State government and a person who we hope would have a great deal of integrity. There can be no argument about that. What you are proposing is to enable him to place somebody -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-What the Government is proposing is a system whereby it can appoint as a Distribution Commissioner somebody like Clem Jones, the Lord Mayor of

Brisbane, who by occupation is a surveyor. Let us look back at recent history. In 1974 Clem Jones contested the Federal seat of Griffith. For a number of reasons he is not here today. He was unsuccessful and I continue to represent that electorate. I look forward to the next election campaign in the very near future. But imagine making Clem Jones a Distribution Commissioner in Queensland and imagine what he would do to my Federal seat of Griffith. He could not do a much worse job than the present Distribution Commissioners did when they eliminated my seat completely. It is only because of the collective wisdom of the Opposition in the Senate chamber that my seat of Griffith continues. Can honourable members imagine, from looking at the practices of the Labor Party over the last 3 years, how it would have exploited this change? Over 50 people of Labor persuasion have been appointed to jobs- jobs for the boys- in the last couple of years. There would have been another 6 jobs going if the Government had been able to have this alteration made. Thank heavens for the democracy which exists in this country. Opposition members are a wake-up to what motivates the members of the present Government. . I would like to turn to a less emotional aspect of the Bill and refer to the endeavours by the Government to change the postal voting procedure by altering the deadline for the return of postal votes. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) said that there was no way to justify allowing a person to apply for a postal vote until 6 o’clock on the actual polling day. He also said that it was the right of every citizen to have a vote. The fact is that many people are suddenly and unexpectedly called interstate at the very last moment, perhaps because of a family bereavement, illness or business reasons. This means that they have to leave at the twelfth hour without any realisation -

Mr Morris:

– What is wrong with the eleventh hour?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The eleventh hour or the twelfth hour, but the Government is trying to cut it off at the tenth hour.

Mr Morris:

– The sixth hour.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-At least the honourable member has acknowledged in that interjection that he was incorrect in the other assessment he made. Another area of concern is the Government’s endeavour to make it illegal for postal votes returned after polling day to be counted. With the state of the postal service in this country these days a person would have to get his return to the post office about 3 weeks beforehand to be sure that his postal vote would be in and counted in time. I believe that there is little need to alter the present system. The Minister for Administrative Services, who is absent, has referred on earlier occasions to the fact that it has taken a long time to finalise the results after an election. I feel confident that after the next election we will not be waiting very long to find out which Party has won office. It will all be over for honourable members opposite like the sun setting in the evening. This morning the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said how he enjoyed question time. I thought to myself that everybody has a moment in the sun and that this morning was his moment in the sun prior to his farewell.

I would have liked to make a number of other points but my friend the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) wants to speak. I will curtail my remarks to enable him to do so. I mention clause 7 of the Bill, which refers to section 89 of the principal Act. The Government is attempting to prevent the inspection of lists of postal vote applications, but some of the States have what is called a marked roll. In Queensland after every State election the candidates are sent- or they can ask for one- a State roll which has stamped next to the name of every person who received a postal vote the words ‘Postal Vote’. I am not opposed to the spirit which motivates the seeking of this change but I point out that, well intentioned though the Minister may be on this occasion- I am giving a lot away in saying that he could be well intentioned- that change will be rendered useless by the existence of other rolls. I regret very much that, in order to assist other honourable members, I must curtail my comments, but I look forward to hearing the contribution of the honourable member for Wakefield.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I shall speak for only about 5 minutes but I hope to receive a reply to what I am about to say because it is a very serious matter. In his second reading speech the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) said:

At present, a period of 10 days’ grace after polling day is allowed for the receipt of postal votes by the relevant returning officer. This practice hinders any attempt to speed the count, especially for Senate elections. It is therefore proposed that postal votes be returned so as to reach the appropriate returning officer not later than the close of the poll.

The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), when speaking on this matter, said that all electors should be given an equal opportunity to vote. Let me put this to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan): The polling place at Oodnadatta is to be closed. People there will have to travel to the nearest polling booth at Marree, 271 miles away. If Cockburn polling booth is closed people will have to travel 126 miles to Yunta, the next polling place. If Olary is closed people will have to travel 50 miles to Yunta and if Blinman is closed they will have to travel 69 miles to Hawker. If the footwork of the people living in these towns is good enough it will be possible for them to use the postal voting system but we know the state that the postal service is in.

If the people living in those towns do everything perfectly they will be able to get a postal vote. They will have to apply for one at Kadina and then the application will go to Adelaide and come back to Kadina. However, the people who live 20 miles or 50 miles out on stations who get mail once a week will never be able to vote. There will not be an opportunity for them to vote. There are not thousands of people involved; there are only a few people living in these areas. Under present circumstances they come to the towns to vote and make the visit a social occasion but under what is proposed they will not be able to vote. I am talking about equality of opportunity to vote. The Government is deliberately making it impossible for these people to vote and I will refer to this matter again in a moment. The Government also says that it is going to insist that the vote be returned to the returning officer by polling day and this will make it even more impossible for the people I have mentioned to vote. It was very difficult before.

The Minister for Housing and Construction is a sensible and responsible person. I ask him how he thinks it will be possible for people living 50 miles out from Oodnadatta to vote when they only get the mail once a week and the postal service is like it is? Perhaps they ought to get mail more often but they do not. Some of them get it twice a week but most get it once a week. How does the Minister think they will be able to vote? Does he think that if their footwork is fast enought and the postal service good enough they will be able to vote?

I said that this is a deliberate act on the part of the Government, and it is. I wrote to the Minister for Administrative Services about this matter but I did not oppose a great many of the proposals. I think it was sensible and responsible to close many polling booths. But the group I referred to, and there are others, is the worst affected. I wrote to him about the matter on 8 May because I thought that he could not have a complete grasp of every detail in his Department. I set these matters out for him to understand and so that he could see what he was doing. I got no answer. I wrote again on 1 5 June and again got no answer. I expected to get some kind of an answer. The Minister cannot claim that he did not know what he was doing. He did it with his eyes open. I would have thought that this was an accident if I had not written to him but he is deliberately disfranchising a small number of people. I suppose that because there are not many people involved this case will be dismissed from the minds of some people but I do not dismiss it. I hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will not dismiss the case I have brought forward relating to Oodnadatta, Cockburn, Olary and Blinman just because not many people are involved. Not many are involved. This action will make it almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to vote. It is proposed that this be brought so that the postal votes have to be back at Kadina by polling day.

The honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) must know what is involved because this area used to be in the Grey electorate. Imagine how the whole system will work. An application for a postal vote has to be lodged by a station owner 20 miles out from Oodnadatta and the mail service will take it to Oodnadatta. From there it gradually will filter to Kadina and be dealt with there. Then the application will have to go back to Oodnadatta and stay there until the mail goes out to the station. If the owner is waiting for it at the station and is not away from it doing his work he will sign it and it will then go back to Oodnadatta. Then, under this proposal, it will have to reach Kadina by voting day. The Minister must see that it is literally and logistically impossible for that to happen. I am not complaining about a whole lot of other matters of high principle; I am making a plea that this kind of action be not taken to disfranchise a limited number of my people.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 56

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

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

Third Reading

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

BOOK BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1975 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The Opposition does not oppose the Book Bounty Bill (No. 2) 1975 for the book bounty is of our own creation. It is a measure of assistance to the Australian printing industry and thus to the Australian publishing industry. This Bill should stimulate the retention of printing work in Australia, and thereby the growth and development of the Australian printing industry. It enables the continuity of employment for a large number of tradesmen in the printing industry and creates job opportunities in the industry for school leavers as apprentices. It enables publishing costs to be more competitive with books produced overseas and imported into Australia. It will enable works with a limited market which might be denied publication by prohibitive production costs but which are valuable work some opportunity to gain publication. An additional advantage in this economic climate is that it is a factor in keeping to more reasonable levels the prices of books to Australian readers. It perhaps will stimulate greater reading activity. That is the broad purpose of the Book Bounty Bill.

During the financial year ended 30 June 1975, book bounty payments totalled just under $6m. The number of books on which bounty was paid exceeded 35 500 000. 1 ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard a summary of those figures broken down on a State by State basis.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr ADERMANN:

– On a previous occasion I said, and I repeat now, that this a substantial bounty. On that occasion I made some comments which I do not intend to repeat in any detail today. But we are not altogether happy that despite requests we have not been able to obtain titles of all the books which receive bounty. We believe that quite suspect, unedifying and even pornographic books are sometimes managing to qualify for bounty assistance. I repeat that allegation now and I reaffirm our concern about it. I remind honourable members that on a previous occasion I made that very important observation in some detail, hoping that the position could be remedied. True it is that we can obtain names and addresses of claimant printers and the amount in total that they have received. I have those details here with me. But the detail we need of titles we cannot obtain. This list merely reinforces our considerable disquiet.

This Bill further extends or perhaps more correctly reinstates certain provisions under which bounty may be claimed. It extends the assistance of book bounty to the production in Australia of law reports. It removes law reports from lists of excluded publications. In fact the previous exclusion of law reports from the previous Bill, I think it occurred last year, has resulted in some printing and publishing being lost to Australia, probably needlessly. The eligibility for bounty of law reports has had a chequered history. When first introduced, the rules applied were those for the determination of different categories of postal rates under the Post Office regulations. It led to bounty being allowed in some States and not in others. The then Department of Customs recommended- the recommendation was adoptedthat law reports should be eligible. In June 1971, the decision was reversed on the grounds that law reports were periodicals- which at that time had become ineligible- and that they did not contain sufficient original matter. However, representations to a Tariff Board inquiry succeeded in obtaining a recommendation for the bounty to be again allowed. The Department of Manufacturing Industry rejected that recommendation, probably understandably. I am not critical of its judgment at that time because the judgment was made on the basis that there was not a great likelihood that law reports would be printed overseas. Therefore I am not attacking the Department or criticising it for its decision.

But due to an acute acceleration of printing and paper costs that opinion had to be revised.

We have arrived at a situation where, with bounty not being allowed, a quotation in Hong Kong for one such printing was $2,906.67 plus air freight to Australia of perhaps $600. In Australia the quotation was $4,422. Other similar reports saw such examples as a Hong Kong quote of $1,893.33 as against a Sydney quote of $3,505.50. I have been assured that the quality and performance of the Hong Kong printers, after the initial performance, were as good as those obtained in Australia. This of course meant that there was a loss of worrying proportions by the Australian printing industry to overseas printers. The consequence to the industry, employment and job opportunities were likely to be of serious proportions. One very large publisher asserts that his organisation could have faced the situation where without bounty, no less than 18 out of 29 titles would have had to be given to overseas printers.

It has been put to me- it is not my opinion but as it has been put to me I should like to mention it in the context of this debate- that some feel that the legal profession is quite profuse in its publications and has reservations about this amendment and the likelihood of its cost being much more than the estimate of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Lionel Bowen) of $50,000. 1 think the Minister will accept that in the spirit in which I am saying it. I am putting that forward not as my view but because it is a representation to me I make the point.

This subsidy must not be allowed to develop into any sort of subsidy to apply to any profession. I look rather to some very desirable improvements which should be facilitated by this new Bill and it very largely follows suggestions put to the Government from the Opposition parties and people who saw us in response to representations we received while the previous Bill was in the Senate last time it was debated. Not only should it retain law reports more generally to the advantage of the Australian printing and publishing industries but also the worth of such reports is largely grounded in their quick availability and accessibility. Overseas printing causes delay in printing and delays in availability to those requiring and needing such reports. This applies not only to those in the legal and accountancy professions but also to many other people. I will say a little more about that later.

As well as the matter of producing current law reports, past volumes must be available to those newly entering the legal profession and those past sets are very expensive. One firm noted that a full set Victorian Law Reports from 1861 cost $2,330 and says that prices in Singapore are negotiable at nearly 50 per cent lower than the comparable Australian quotation. There would, of course, be no way without bounty by which Australian publishers could be cajoled or induced to retain Australian printers when the cost differential is so vast. I revert for a moment to that other aspect I briefly mentioned previously. I quote part of a submission put to me in the form of representations by one very notable Australian publisher. It reads:

Our concern is not, however, just with cost escalation. Legal publishers are frequently criticised both in Government circles and amongst the profession, for delays in law reporting. Without up-to-date reports a lawyer is clearly deprived of a fundamental tool of trade. Should we be forced to send law reports overseas we are convinced that the speed of reporting would drop considerably due to the problems of distance and communications. With the Australian Law Reports, for instance, our stated objective is to produce reports of the High Court of Australia within eight weeks of judgment being handed down. By and large over the last year we have been able to maintain this standard due to efficient local organisation, but it is difficult to see how we could achieve the same result in twice the time should we have to produce these reports overseas.

It could be that this legislation might come before us again in the future. I will not take time now but certain definitions perhaps could be clarified a little more. For instance, the delineation of the class and nature of works which qualify for a subsidy and the definition of ‘substantial part’ may need some elucidation but at this stage I merely make a point and leave it at that as perhaps this is not an opportune time to pursue it. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It sought a widening of the bounty to encompass law reports and that is the point and purpose of today’s amended Bill. The observations, the points and the comments we have put forward are put in a constructive spirit and I hope that at the appropriate time they will re:ceive due consideration.

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– in reply- I will be very brief because my friend the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) made a few points that perhaps call for some comment. He cited some figures which showed that at the end of June 1975 the amount of subsidy totalled approximately $6m. I think that the books receiving the benefits of the subsidy numbered some 36 million. It is interesting to note that in the short time since 1972-73 the amount of bounty has doubled and the number of books receiving the benefit of the bounty has risen from approximately 30 million- I am looking at the Hansard record of the earlier debate- to 36 million today.

I draw attention to those facts only as an indication of the extent of the priority which the Government gives to assisting the Australian book publishing industry.

The honourable member also drew attention to certain aspects of publications of the legal profession. He need not have been apologetic. I share his concern. I would point out only that the publications are not those of the legal profession; they are those of the publishers who serve the legal profession. He was discreet enough not to mention the names of the 2 principal publishers although by referring to the Australian Law Reports and quoting from some correspondence on the subject he indicated to me at least the name of the publisher. I say this to him- it may be that it will be conveyed back to the publishers- that the Government does view with some concern the duplication of resources that takes place in the legal and accounting publishing industry. All too often we see where a matter of concern which emanates perhaps from the courts or from this Parliament is the subject of publication by competing companies. One company might not be particularly quick in getting its publication into the hands of the professions, its customers. Another company comes along, provides a better service and captures that share of the market. That is the name of the game, but in the course of doing this one gets duplication and overlapping, certainly of law reports. The honourable member mentioned the Australian Law Reports. There are many others including the Commonwealth Law Reports and in the old days in New South Wales the New South Wales State Law Reports, it is then the New South Wales Weekly Notes and, of course, the New South Wales Law Reports. This all means more paper, more resources and more labour which, in turn, lead to efficiency in the short run but to inefficiencies in the long run which call on the taxpayers to subsidise the difference as we have done under this legislation to the extent of $6m, otherwise the work goes overseas. So I say to the honourable member that the Government welcomes the Opposition’s support for once on this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2148

TRADE PRACTICES BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974-1975 as a consequence of the Consumer Protection Bill 1975 which was introduced into this House yesterday. The Trade Practices Act represented a great step forward in consumer protection in Australia. It provided, for the first time, laws dealing with this important subject which operated on an Australia-wide basis. The Consumer Protection Bill now before this House takes a further step forward by creating an Australian Consumer Protection Authority and expanding Australian Government activities related to consumer protection.

The Bill I have just introduced removes from the Trade Practices Act the references to consumer protection. Those provisions are to be reenacted in the Consumer Protection Bill 1975. The Bill also provides transitional arrangements which ensure that no legal gaps are created between the repeals effected by this Bill and their re-enactment. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2148

CITIES COMMISSION (REPEAL) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Sum

-The Bill now before the House is the Cities Commission (Repeal) Bill 1975. At this stage I should like to indicate that the Opposition is not opposed to this Bill. However, in addressing the House I should like to draw the attention of the House to the history of the Cities Commission. It was a Liberal-National Country Party government which originated the legislation which finally evolved into the form known as the Cities Commission Act. It was a Liberal-National Country Party government that recognised the need to tackle problems of urban areas with vigour and imagination.

Mr Uren:

– In the last fortnight of a 23 years reign.

Mr WILSON:

-It was a Liberal-National Country Party government which recognised the need to secure a better quality of life in our urban areas. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) said that the action was taken belatedly. The action was in fact taken. It is always a question in the judgment of history as to whether problems were identified at the appropriate time. I point out to the House that the Liberal and National Country parties in government recognised the problems that had emerged in our urban areas. Having overcome many of the other problems that were faced by government over a number of years in office the priorities could then be directed and attention could then be directed to the problems of urban areas.

The events of the last 3 years have increased our appreciation of the importance of urban development. We want to continue a sensitive, realistic approach to the handling of matters related to urban development. I turn back to the initiation of this legislation. It was introduced as a Bill to set up the National Urban and Regional Development Authority, an authority which was established on 31 October 1972 as a statutory corporation. Its duties were to investigate matters and to report to the Minister and to assist the Government in the consideration of making financial assistance available to the States. It was in large measure responsible to act in accordance with directions of the Minister although in a number of areas it had a degree of autonomy and independence. This autonomy and independence largely came through an advisory committee that was established to advise the authority. When the present Government came to office it introduced amending legislation which changed the Authority’s name to the Cities Commission. I shall return to that in just a moment.

There is no doubt that urban problems and challenges are national in character. There is no doubt that in a federation the decisions of a Commonwealth government, the governments of the States, local government authorities, semigovernmental instrumentalities and private decisions both corporate and individual have a significant effect on the way in which our urban areas develop. Recognising the significance of that effect and the fact that if those decisions do not take account of the interrelated effect that they have, bad results can ensue. It is important that in a Federal government we recognise the role that must be played at the national level. We want to see balanced development in our urban areas. Many of our suburbs are often given the title ‘dormitory suburbs’. That term lacks a warmth. It creates the impression that the areas are used by people only when they return home to sleep. People today want their urban areas to be humanised. They want the benefit and pleasure of living in communities. They want to see developed communities within the framework of the large urban cities.

There is an increasing recognition that development of community is not exclusively based upon geography. The people want to see their urban areas develop in a balanced way with recognition that in an urban area there is need to provide not only housing but also access to employment, education and commercial, social and recreational facilities. There is also a clear need to diversify our urban areas, to ensure that within any particular urban area there is the maximum range of choice. Over recent years governments have increasingly recognised the spatial impact of their decisions. It is important that within a government the impact of the decisions of its departments upon urban areas should be fully appreciated. Over recent years in all governments has developed a vertical functional operation. Each department has concerned itself with its own functions whether they be transport, education, health, trade, manufacturing or postal. They have all been concerned with their own particular responsibilities. Regretfully, all too often those vertically structured departments have failed to identify the implications of their decisions on the community at large.

That failure has resulted in a huge cost in human terms, not only in the way and style in which people can live but also in the cost to the community in the allocation of resources to redeem the defects which have come about because of the functional orientation of departmental decision making. This applies not only to departments but also to the 3 forms of government that we have in Australia. We need to recognise that each form and sphere of government in making decisions can affect the decisions of other spheres of government and in turn those decisions can influence the shape and development of our urban areas and the way in which our communities live and enjoy life. Therefore, it is vitally important that there be mechanisms whereby there can be co-operation between the departments and co-ordination of their activities having in mind the achievement of the best type of urban development that we are able to devise. Likewise, it is essential that there be co-operation between the various spheres of government. I emphasise co-operation and not confrontation.

When the Government came to office it changed the name of, and amended the legislation that set up, the original National Urban and Regional Development Authority. The Government changed the structure of the Authority. It indicated that it believed that its functions should be to provide a bridge between the Commonwealth and the States. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development he had in mind that as a result of the legislation he promoted the Cities Commission would have an expanded role and greater responsibilities. When the Minister introduced the change in name he said that it was symbolic of one of the great themes of the Labor Government’s program for the cities both old and new. The change of name to the Cities Commission was to be a symbol of the Government’s concern for cities and urban areas. One almost feels that it is ironic that the debate today should be taking place when the political events are as they are, for today that symbol of a program is to be deleted from the statute book.

Let us look at cities that this Government has influenced. They are cities where there is unemployment and where thousands of people would like to have the opportunity to live in their own homes or rent accommodation of their choice. They are unable to do so because in many instances they cannot afford to buy a house or rent a house because they are unemployed or their wives are unemployed. There cannot be sensible urban development and improvement of the urban infrastructure while a large percentage of the Australian work force is unemployed. We find in the dole queues many young people as well as old people- people who are frustrated as a result of the economic mismanagement of this discredited Government. So frustrated are they in many instances that they have lost the desire to work and the understanding that we can only have a better society, better cities and better urban areas if we are prepared to work and achieve things, and if governments are prepared to have programs and conduct their affairs in a way in which economic management results in a fully employed economy.

I move from the question of unemployment to inflation. There cannot be orderly urban development whilst there is a state of hyperinflation. The effect of constantly rising prices is that it throws into disarray the works programs of so many State governments, local government bodies and semi-governmental authorities which are seeking to improve and continually to expand the urban infrastructure to provide services by way of expanding sewerage facilities, expanding the electricity authorities and expanding the postal services. In aU these areas there is clear evidence that the authorities are unable to maintain their works program at a level sufficient to meet the rising demand of a growing population. If they cannot meet the rising demand of a growing population they are certainly unable to improve the general level of the urban infrastructure, to remove the deficiencies which have come about as a consequence of decisions which now, with the benefit of hindsight, we see were faulty decisions. So as a result of inflation, the symbol of the Cities Commission, of a program and the theme for the development of cities, is beginning to disappear.

I turn from unemployment and inflation to the question of economic growth. Under the economic mismanagement of this Government we have found economic growth so slowed down that as a consequence we are not able to provide for the community the sorts of urban development that would otherwise have been possible. One of the greatest effects of the economic slowdown, coupled with inflation and unemployment, has been upon the outer developing suburbs and the growth centres. Everyone now recognises that in order to extend effectively an urban area or establish a growth centre it is absolutely essential that there be provided an employment base and employment opportunities close to the homes where people live and to the communities in which they spend their recreational time. Yet, as a conequence of this Government’s economic mismanagement, its tariff policies and its other measures we find that so many of the industries that provided employment in the outer suburbs and the smaller cities and would have provided employment in the growth centres are in the greatest difficulty and in many instances have closed down altogether.

The Minister for Urban and Regional Development came into this House in 1973 and proposed that the name of the National Urban and Regional Development Authority be changed to the Cities Commission as it was a symbol of the great theme of this Government. A great theme indeed! It is a theme that through unemployment, through inflation and through the slowing down of economic growth has resulted in a slowdown in the development of our urban areas, in the diversification of these areas, in the provison of more homes for those who want them and in the general upgrading of the facilities available to the Australian people in the cities and the towns in which they live. As I said, it is symbolic that this Bill to repeal the Cities Commission should come forward today. What are needed are great themes put into practice, not symbols that have no substance.

Secondly, the Minister in his speech proposing the amendments to the legislation in 1973 suggested that the Cities Commission would provide a bridge between the Commonwealth and the States. I wonder whether now, in its repeal, he has in mind taking down that bridge. I would hope that the Department of Urban and Regional Development would be able to recognise the need for close consultation and cooperation with the States. The Minister himself has gone on record as saying that federalism is a partnership in a spirit of mutual co-operation at all levels of government. It is more than a spirit of mutual co-operation. It involves a recognition of the autonomy and independence of the several forms of government in this country. It is an independence that must be preserved through co-operation not an independence that is to be destroyed as a consequence of alleged cooperation.

I turn now to the Minister’s proposals, at the time he changed the name of the Authority, for the expansion of its responsibilities. He said that it would conduct studies of regional areas, that it would play a leading role in the establishment of new cities, and that it would provide consultative services. It would now appear he has in mind taking these functions over into a bureau which he proposes to establish within his Department. The Minister claimed, when NURDA was first established, that it would wither on the vine. It has not withered on the vine. The vine has been cut, and the man with the secateurs has been the Minister. He claimed that his amendments would enable the Cities Commission to play a more active and useful role. It has played a role. Now the Minister has abolished that Commission. It is easy to see that as the Department has expanded there has developed a situation where there has been duplication and confusion as to which authority, whether the Department or the Commission, should perform certain functions. Insofar as each, the Commission and the Department, were dealing with the States and local government, the continuance of the 2 bodies handling very similar issues created difficulties for those governments dealing with Federal Government instrumentalities.

I turn now to the Minister’s proposal to establish within the Department a Bureau of the Cities. He outlined in his second reading speech the purposes and functions of the proposed bureau. One assumes that what he has in mind is that the bureau will perform many of the functions which the Cities Commission previously performed and which were being performed by the Department of Urban and Regional

Development. He indicated in his speech that as the Department of Urban and Regional Development has expanded its capacity it has gradually taken over the functions of the Cities Commission.

I want to touch on some of the functions that he listed in his second reading speech. He said that amongst those functions would be the provision of professional and technical advice. I wonder how many members he proposes should be engaged in this work? I would be unhappythe Opposition would be unhappy- to see centralised professional and technical services used in a way which fails to recognise the expertise in the community. If that unit is to provide all the professional and technical advice which is needed in urban affairs we do not agree with the proposal. If it is there to co-ordinate and develop the expertise of the community at large we can see it having a useful role, for there are professional and technical experts in local government, in State government authorities and their instrumentalities, in universities and in colleges of advanced education. There is a large body of private professional and technical experts and consultants.

We would see the importance of a bureau or group within the Department playing that important role to ensure that the best return is achieved out of the skills within the community as a whole and gathering those skills to deal with urban problems as they develop in a way that preserves diversity, initiative and differing viewpoints so that we get different styles of development taking place in different parts of our diverse country. We would also expect that in the development and pursuit of that purpose adequate recognition would be given to multidisciplinary professional and technical advice. If it is intended that all those disciplines be brought together and only one group employed by the Government used in the pursuit of national urban policies, we think there is a danger that such a group will operate on too narrow a base and not have sufficiently wide horizons.

I turn now to some other aspects of the proposed cities bureau. It is to undertake studies and research. I noticed that the Minister used the phrase ‘undertake studies’. I would have thought it would be better to encourage studies and research in those quarters to which I have referred because, in expanding a bureau such as this, there is a great danger that it will tend to believe that it has a monopoly on wisdom, skill and expertise. The Department has skills and it has some very fine officers, but one would want to ensure that an atmosphere did not develop in which they become inward looking, thinking that they as a group provide the fount of all wisdom and that those operating at other levels of government within the community at large have nothing to contribute in the development of our urban areas. One would hope that advice on urban and regional investment programs would be limited to concern with the impact of Federal Government investment in urban areas and the study of national implications of other programs, because there is a great danger in concentrating too much responsibility within one department where there are several spheres of government with their own independent functions to perform in this area.

I should point out with regard to the functions of conducting engineering planning studies and investigations and undertaking the planning, design and construction of engineering works of an investigatory and experimental nature, including works associated with water supply, sewerage, storm water, roads and other transportation systems within pilot projects, that I hope that emphasis is put on the experimental nature of such works and on pilot projects. I hope too that the way in which that planning would be done and those experiments carried out would be to use the undoubted expertise in the semigovernmental instrumentalities which are now responsible for carrying out sewerage works, storm water works and road programs. I hope too that the independent professional consultants will be used for the reasons I mentioned earlier, because throughout the whole community, at all levels of government and in the private sector, there are large reserves of skills and ability, and they should be used.

I was interested to note that, amongst other functions, the proposed bureau is to keep abreast of major developments. One would hope that all professionally and technically trained people with skill in a special area would make it part of their business to keep abreast of major developments. Undoubtedly there is a need for the Federal Government, through its Department of Urban and Regional Development, to ensure that the knowledge and skills which are developed overseas are brought to Australia and made available. The remaining functions of the proposed bureau concentrate very heavily on its work in the development of regional areas, and it would appear that that is where the proposed Cities Bureau may end. The rise and fall of the Cities Commission may take the form of its reemergence as the Albury-Wodonga bureau because we see from the Minister’s second reading statement that the proposed bureau is to be located there and is to have a significant role in the development of Albury-Wodonga, it having no role apparently in general or central policy formulation.

I conclude by emphasising our concern for the orderly development of our urban areas and our concern to see that all spheres of government have adequate resources to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities in urban areas. One of the great difficulties in the past has been that State and local government bodies and their instrumentalities have not had sufficient resources to enable them to maintain the growth of our cities and growth centres at a rate sufficient to meet the demands of a growing population. They have not had sufficient resources to enable them to meet the rising expectations in terms of standards that the community now requires.

The Liberal-National Country Party Opposition has put forward a federalism policy which, amongst other things, is designed to provide various spheres of government with adequate resources to enable them to fulfil the responsibilities in urban affairs and in other areas which are undoubtedly their responsibility. Those resources need to be made available in terms of recurrent income as well as by way of loan funds and there needs to be a careful analysis as to which areas of urban development can best take place out of tax revenues and which can more appropriately be pursued with the use of loan funds. One of the grave difficulties facing semigovernment authorities today is the heavy debt burden and interest burden that they carry. As I mentioned in opening, the Opposition is not opposed to this Bill but draws to the attention of the House the particular points that I have touched on in my remarks today.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-This Bill marks the coming of age of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. It marks a point at which the Department has been able to take over the work of the National Urban and Regional Development Authority which, as we have been told, was established in the dying days of the McMahon Government, and reconstituted as the Cities Commission by the Whitlam Government. The Cities Commission represented an affirmation by the Whitlam Government of its commitment not only to the magnificent dream of a decentralised Australia but also to the proposition that it is not possible for Australians to enjoy acceptable standards of urban life without decentralisation. As the Cities Commission pointed out in its first report:

If the cities of Australia continue to grow in their present way, the opportunity for the economic and social advancement of an increasing number of Australians will be severely curtailed.

It is already apparent that sub-standard neighbourhoods are growing around the central cores of the major capital cities with many people living in conditions of poverty, poor housing, and a lack of social and recreational opportunities.

Without positive Government intervention this urban decay will spread.

Some of the developments taking place on the fringes of our cities provide, in certain respects, an environment that can be equally depressing and restricted.

It is not only deprived minorities who are suffering from the problems and inadequacies of our cities.

An increasing proportion of the middle and higher income earners are finding that as the metropolitan area expands, their economic and social opportunities are curtailed and the quality of their life and environmental surrounds is diminishing.

It is an authentic tragedy that the House should be discussing this Bill when, for the first time since Federation, the whole idea of decentralisation and the whole notion of growth centre development are under challenge. Former leaders of the Liberal Party and former leaders of the Country Party always gave at least lip service to the idea of decentralisation even if over the 23 years of Liberal hegemony in this House nothing practical was ever done to give concrete form to decentralisation. The present Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Malcolm Fraser, said in his reply to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) that a Liberal government would suspend the growth centre program through which this Government has been bringing new vitality to communities such as Albury- Wodonga and Orange-Bathurst. (Quorum formed).

The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) who is attempting to cut short the time available to me for this speech like me represents an urban electorate but unlike me he is apparently unable to appreciate the importance of decentralisation as a way of relieving all the pressures which are operating on our existing capital and regional centres. When I was interrupted by the honourable member for Griffith I was referring to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition- the Leader of the Liberal Partyacting without protest of any kind from the National Country Party has declared that a Liberal-National Country Party Government would suspend the growth centre program. I wonder how much careful consideration and planning was given to that proposal before it was inserted as a makeweight in the Leader’s attempt to itemise his $ 1,000m further cut in Government spending. I wonder how much consideration was given to the impact that the suspension of the program will have upon contractors already operating in the Albury- Wodonga area. I wonder how much consideration was given to the impact it will have upon the planning staffs which are slowly, painfully and meticulously being built up in the Albury- Wodonga area. I wonder how much consideration was given to the fragile pattern of Federal-State co-operation on the Albury- Wodonga program. I wonder how much consideration was given to the aspirations of the Albury- Wodonga people themselves or at least the overwhelming majority of AlburyWodonga people who have welcomed the development of their city as a growth centre.

It is not particularly to the obstructionism of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter that I want to address myself today, it is not to the regression that the Liberal and National Country Party is showing in recreating the patterns of behaviour and the attitudes that it took to urban and regional development prior to the late part of 1972 when it had its death bed repentance and established the National Urban and Regional Development Authority, but it is to the way that the Victorian Liberal Premier and the Victorian Government, are working in harmony with this running down of the growth centre program and with this sabotaging of decentralisation as a concept in this country. It is to the way in which the Liberal Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, has scrapped plans for a growth centre development in the Geelong area. Planning for Geelong was one of the great accomplishments fostered by the National Urban and Regional Development Authority and by the Cities Commission. It was a project which this Government was prepared to back and underwrite to the hilt. It was a project for which this Government earmarked very substantial funds in the last 2 Budgets. Yet it is a program for which legislation was introduced into the Victorian Parliament and never passed. It is a program for which the Victorian Premier has now thrown in the towel in the face of opposition from vested interests in the Geelong area. There can be no doubt, surveying the record, that what the Victorian Liberal Government has done in the matter of Geelong is to cave in to interests of a purely sectional character. There can be no doubt that what the Hamer Government has done is sell out the concept of growth centres which alone can give the idea of decentralisation practical form.

Let me review the history of this aborted growth centre program as the National Urban and Regional Development Authority and subsequently the Cities Commission were involved in it. In 1967, in its report on disperse development, the Victorian Government recognised that Geelong had all the attributes of a growth area, so much so that in the report it was suggested that there was no need for the Victorian Government to take special action to ensure that the acceleration process took place. Three other centres in Victoria were singled out by the Victorian Government because Geelong was all ready to go- In 1969, the Geelong Regional Planning Authority was established to implement unified, integrated urban planning for the 9 Geelong municipalities. In 1972, the National Urban and Regional Development Authority singled out Geelong for an accelerated growth program. In 1973, meetings between the Victorian Government and the Australian Government led to an agreed plan for large scale urban growth in the Geelong area. Up to $lm has been committed to the Geelong planning process. In Geelong alone up to 20 major studies have been carried out in fields such as water supply, air pollution, transport and drainage.

The Melbourne planning firm of Loder and Bayly has completed a comprehensive report on strategies which will bring Geelong a population of half a million people by the year 2000. Major areas of land have been frozen as a means of dampening down speculation and preventing premature, unco-ordinated development. All these great initiatives, taken at a cost of up to $3m in Australian money are now thrown into doubt by the about-face which has been executed by the Victorian Government. All these preparations seem likely to go for nothing because Mr Hamer and his Ministers are unable or unwilling to stand up to powerful landholding and land developing interests within the Liberal Party. All the Australians who have dreamed for years about a really effective decentralisation policy are to be let down because all that the Liberals are interested in contributing to decentralisation and to growth centre development is lip service.

In the 1974-75 Budget, $20m was set aside for the Geelong growth centre. In October 1974, the Australian Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), the Victorian Minister for Planning, Mr Hunt, and the Victorian Minister for State Development, Mr Byrne, announced a joint Federal-State development program. Late last month, that announcement was repudiated publicly by Mr Byrne. Mr Byrne announced that the Geelong growth centre had been abandoned as the result of the Victorian Cabinet decision.

It is no secret that this disastrously retrograde decision has been accepted by the Liberal Party at the instigation of a handful of powerful people, among its members. It is no secret that the ideal of decentralisation has been sold out in the interests of wealthy landholders and land developers. We know the names of the men concerned because they were all named in the Melbourne Age of 21 September in an article headed appropriately enough: ‘A victory for the manipulators- Hamer Government gives in to lobby groups’. Let me instance from the Melbourne Age representatives of 3 of the groups who have been involved. The Melbourne Age reports:

One of these landowners is Mr Robert Wood Pettit, the current president of Barrabool Shire Council. He has extensive holdings in the Geelong area which would be affected by the growth centre plan.

Mr Pettit has a 273 acre family farm near Torquay which . . . would be declared a rural zone, with a minimum 200-acre subdivision limit.

More importantly, Waurnvale Development Pry Ltd- a company of which Mr Pettit is a director and shareholderhas acquired areas of development land in the area which would be affected by the scheme.

One of the areas is 226 acres of prime development land on the Prince’s Highway west of Geelong which the company bought about 2 years ago for $ 1 .4 million.

About half this land is ‘frozen’ because it is in a ‘development area’ and could be acquired if the Government went ahead with the growth-centre scheme.

Mr Pettit has been a leading opponent of the growthcentre scheme, although of course he makes it clear that his opposition is based on real objections rather than selfinterest. For example, last December he moved this motion at Barrabool Council:

This council objects strongly to the proposed legislation whereby a large area of Western District land is to be acquired, thus depriving its owners of their livelihood and family inheritance, when the acquisition figure appears to be a figure which would not enable those ratepayers to continue, as primary producers, to produce much-needed foodstuffs.

Let me give another example. The Melbourne Age reported:

Down the road from the McCanns is a somewhat smaller area of land- IS acres- owned by a company called Ceres Lookout Estate Pry Ltd.

Latest Corporate Affairs Commission records show that the Liberal (MLA) for Beliarine (Mr Aurel Smith) and his family have a substantial interest in the company.

The land was bought for $26,000 in 1964, and is in the Wandana Heights area where residents have been seeking residential rezoning for several years. A rough calculation shows that if the Ceres Lookout Estate was subdivided, the land could be worth $ 1 20,000 after paying for servicing.

However, the land is currently zoned rural, and if the Loder and Bayly strategy plan was adopted it would be part of a buffer zone: either acquired for parkland, or having its rural zoning frozen.

I do not want to go through the whole of this article. The article is exhaustive. It makes clear the influences which were brought to bear in order to bring the Geelong centre to nothing.

This abortion of the Geelong growth centre program is but one of a long series of instances in which there has been collaboration between Victorian Government authorities and landdeveloping interests. It goes back over a period of years. I refer to instances like the Rowville land development scandal and the Little Desert project in Victoria. Again and again the pattern of co-operation between land-developing interests and Victorian Government authorities taken either in the interests of repaying substantial profits for the interests concerned or in the interests of holding back progress, as has happened over the Geelong growth centre, re-occurs again and again. This is the other side of the coin from the value that we all recognise as flowing from local participation, local involvement in the planning process, and local decision-making. This is what occurs when there is an inadequate assertion of the national interest and an inadequate assertion of the State interest in the process of urban and regional development.

We should not close our eyes to the costs which are incurred both nationally and at a State level when urban and regional development is allowed to go by default as was the case in the 23 years between the return of the Liberal Party to power at the end of 1949 and its fall from power at the end of 1972. We would not now be faced with such massive bills for the installation of services as basic as sewerage, for the upgrading of the water supply in a city such as Adelaide and for catching up on the backlog of urban roads and urban public transport. We would not be faced with these massive backlogs if we had earlier recognised the unavoidable costs that are incurred as a community when urban and regional development is allowed to go by default to men of the stamp of those whose records I have quoted from the Melbourne Age this afternoon. When we allow these aspects to go by default, when we let handsome profits be reaped by private individuals involved in the development process, the whole community bears the cost and ultimately that cost is sheeted home to the taxpayer.

This Government came to office in 1972 committed to the proposition that for the first time since 1949 the interests of urban and regional development should be given a high priority at the national level- that the work which was begun by the Department of Post-war Reconstruction under Mr John Dedman, the work of regionalisation that was begun prior to 1949, should again be taken up. Very much indeed has been achieved in these past 3 years.

As I said at the outset of my remarks this Bill, the Cities Commission (Repeal) Bill, marks in a very real way the coming of age of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. It marks the point in the development of that Department where it has been able to take on the functions which were pioneered to its credit by the National Urban and Regional Development Authority. This is not a duplication. This is a rationalisation- an incorporation in one body- of the services, the visions, the plans and the personnel needed to make urban and regional development in this country an ongoing process systematized by planning and informed by vision.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– There seems to be a curious sense of unreality in the Government’s approach to this Bill. It is a sense of unreality which is parallel to its approach to the major matters before this House. The Government does not seem to realise that it has only a little time to run and that as soon as the electors can get their hands on it they will destroy it, for there is not the slightest doubt that if an election can be brought about the Government will be thrown from office, dragged screaming from the tart shop, as the phrase goes. That is why the Government with a guilty conscience, knowing that it has done wrong -

Mr Bryant:

– Which one is that?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Your Government. Knowing that it has done wrong, knowing that it has harmed the Australian people, it is trying desperately by any unworthy manoeuvre to avoid an election.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is as aware as I am that we have before us the Cities Commission (Repeal) Bill. If he does not debate the Bill he will not debate anything.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I tried to draw a parallel, and I will now, between the Government’s attitude to the major questions and its attitude to this Bill. There is the same sense of unreality in the Government’s approach. For example, a few moments ago the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) talked about Geelong reaching a population of 500 000 by the year 2000. We find the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) talking about having a big new suburb at Campbelltown near Sydney, about having a growth centre at Albury-Wodonga and about the growth of Canberra. All these things are utterly inconsistent because under the present Government’s policy and as far as can be foreseen, unless there is a major change in Australia’s immigration policy, only about 2 million people will be added to the total population of Australia between now and the year 2000. This figure may be a little less than that contained in the Borrie Commission report.

Mr Uren:

– A little less.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-A little less, and only a little less. The Borrie Commission report was posited on things which were in existence some years ago and which have been changed- I am afraid that they have been changed beyond remedy- by the disastrous policies of this Government. Our birth rate is down and is falling. Immigration has been turned off in the most inhuman way. So the populations to inhabit all these growth centres will simply not be here. That is where it was relevant for me to refer to the sense of unreality. Just as the Government is going on as though it will be in office for months and years to come, so it is laying plans now which can never be more than paper plans, because the people to translate them into actuality will not be here. They will not be in Australia.

Let us have a look at the present position. Where are these people to come from? They will not come from natural increase, and the Government’s policy has effectively turned ofT the immigration tap. With only a couple of million to go between this year and the year 2000 how are we to divide them up? We are told that there will be 300 000 or 400 000 extra people in Geelong; 200 000, 300 000 or 400 000 more here in Canberra; that we are to have a growth centre with another 200 000 or 300 000 people in AlburyWodonga; that there will be more at Orange and Bathurst; and of course the dormitory suburbs around Sydney will grow immensely. We are told that Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Launceston and Perth will all get in for their cut. What about the other country towns such as Monarto, the new growth centre in South Australia? The plans of the Government are nonsense. The Government is wasting tens of millions of dollars on idiotic paper plans which cannot mean a thing because the human population to translate them into reality will simply not be here. The Government has plenty of plans but nothing else will happen. There is a curious unreality about everything the Government is doing. These grandiose schemes mean nothing because the means to carry them out will simply not be here.

I suppose that this Bill in a way is a retreat. From the Government’s point of view it may be an advance, because it is a socialistic Bill which takes away the independent powers of the Cities Commission and concentrates them in the hands of a Minister here in Canberra. This is not such a dangerous thing when we have in power, as we will shortly have in power, a Minister whose objectives are not socialistic. But the present Administration, with its sense of unreality, does not realise that the end of its political life is coming. Under that kind of socialist government this could be quite a dangerous little Bill because it takes away powers from an independent commission and puts them back in the department and the hands of a Minister. As I have said, this does not matter if we have a Minister who is well intentioned. I know that the present Minister is personally well intentioned, but his philosophy is not well intentioned because he is committed, as honourable members on the Government side are committed, to the policy of socialism. I do not think that that is well intentioned and I do not think that it is in the best interests of the Australian people.

The Government has already attempted to bring into operation the first fruits of its doctrine. They are the destruction of the Australian economy and the reduction of living standards of the Australian people. These are the facts and these are the first fruits of socialism. So whilst I agree that the Minister in his own way is well intentioned I make no accusation of bad intentions against the Minister personally -

Mr Uren:

– I will frame that recommendation.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Thank you. I do make every accusation against the Party which the Minister represents in this Parliament and against the doctrines to which he is committed. This Bill, which need not be opposed because very soon it will be in the hands of a different kind of Minister, is in those circumstances not a dangerous Bill. It may be not a good Bill but it is not a particularly bad one. But in the hands of a socialist Minister- that is what it is designed for- it could be a very dangerous Bill indeed because it attempts to concentrate the power in the hands of the Minister by taking it away from the independent commission and putting it into the Minister’s Department. It could be a very great power if allied, as it is allied, with the power of appropriation in the Budget. This is the way this Government is working to bring people under socialist control. It is using, or misusing, the major powers of the Budget for this purpose. If it requires money for this, that or the other, and as it has through its emasculated cohorts in this

House a tied vote so that this House will not do anything about it, it is putting forward the monstrous proposition that the Senate has no right to bring it to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is going wide of the Bill and he is well aware of it. That is the second time I have had to bring him back to order and it will not happen again.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– What I am pointing out, and I think it is relevant to the Bill, are the proposals made in this Bill to transfer powers. That is what is happening. The Bill is to abolish the Cities Commission and to transfer the powers elsewhere. I am relevant in this regard. I am saying that the transfer of powers would not be a bad thing if we did not have a Minister in command who is dedicated to socialism and if we did not have a government in command which was able to use the appropriation power in order to exacerbate these bad consequences. That is germane, so with all respect -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will not dispute my decision. I have not pulled him up for irrelevance; he is repeating something he said some time earlier in his speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sorry about the undue repetition. That is a grievous fault indeed. I do not like to be repetitive. I point out that this is the substance of the Bill. We are not opposing it because we know it is not going to be in the hands of this type of government for very long. I say nothing personal against the Minister, as I said before, who I am sure within his own lights is well intentioned but I do say all I can about the philosophy of the Government which has brought in this Bill for the purpose of centralising power. It has brought it in to take away from the States functions which they should properly exercise. This surely is something which concerns this House.

Under the Cities Commission the States did have a power of at least consultation in a proper form and a power to alter and guide the decisions of the Cities Commission. The States will not have that same kind of power when talking to a bureau in the Minister’s Department. You will see what is happening in consonance with this socialist philosophy to which you, Mr Speaker, as well as other members of your Party, are, I know, dedicated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman seems to think it is smart to involve the Chair in debate. It is not smart and it is not a good debating tactic. I suggest that he refrain from it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Sir. I am sorry if you are ashamed of your political allegiance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will not reflect on the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am trying to help the Chair. At all events, there is little more that needs to be said. This Bill is based on unreality, as can be seen from the speeches made, particularly that of the honourable member for Casey a few moments ago. Secondly, it is a Bill posited on the socialist theory of the centralisation of power and the use of power in a way which takes away from the States of Australia their proper functions. There is no point in opposing the Bill. It is going to be harmless but only because it will not be administered by this kind of government. If there were a prospect of this kind of government remaining in office for long it would be a dangerous Bill and I would feel inclined to oppose it. Since we know that as soon as the electors get their hands on this Government its days are done there is not very much point in opposing something whose net effect is not going to be terribly bad in practice because it will not be in the hands of a Minister dedicated to socialism, as are all members of his Party.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-The Bill before the House to repeal the Cities Commission Act 1972-73 and thereby incorporate the activities of that Commission within the Department of Urban and Regional Development is not an unreasonable ambition of the Government. The Cities Commission Act, which came into being in October 1973, is a corollary of the National Urban and Regional Development Authority, commonly identified as NURDA which was established in 1972 by a Liberal-Country Party Government. Since that time there has been continuing activity by the body involved in the area of urban and regional development. The need for such activity cannot be questioned when seen against the background of population drift and consequent urban congestion. Projections for the year 2001 suggest a population for Sydney of 4 504 000 and for Melbourne of 4 007 000. These figures demonstrate the magnitude of the task confronting the planners. However, it is essential that the Bureau of the Cities, as the appropriate responsible group within the Department is to be described, will address itself not exclusively to meeting the requirements of cities of the aforementioned dimensions but rather to a more equitable or more even distribution of Australia’s population.

It is generally acknowledged that the larger a city grows the greater the cost of providing and maintaining essential services to communities, both industrial and residential. The current concept of decentralisation favours the creation of growth centres or artificially induced communities as distinct from strengthening existing communities in provincial and rural locations. The economy of establishing homes in the latter is substantial. The cost of land and the provision of essential services may be as little as 25 per cent of comparable costs in major cities. The Bureau’s responsibility must lie in advising the Government firstly on the problems of urban and regional development and more importantly on how the Government’s aspirations in population distribution may be realised. The Government must recognise that instrumentalities with specialist characteristics are not necessarily those best equipped to make social judgments.

It is not a new phenomenon for people, being simply and precisely that, to show a disinclination to adjust to proposed plans for a changed way of life. The virtual sterilisation of a number of cities throughout the world which have fallen victim to planners’ enthusiasm should stand as a warning to those who believe they have the capacity to solve man’s problems. Los Angeles is one city that readily comes to mind. There the planners, in an abortive attempt to solve the city’s traffic problems, eventually arrived at a position where a quarter of Los Angeles was under roads or traffic ways of one sort or another. The subsequent smog problem and continuing congestion made that city a less attractive place in which to live than it had been previously.

It is true that governments face critical gaps in their understanding of when a city is too big. There can be no question of the fact that If governments do not pay proper attention to the maintenance of a balanced socio-economic society the problems of the cities will be exacerbated. Current population trends resulting from rural decline should be a grim reminder to the Government that its continuing neglect of nonmetropolitan Australia not only places in danger our future economic wellbeing but imposes a great hardship on those families long established in cities who more and more are required to finance authorities in their losing battle to meet the escalating costs of gross expansion. The Bureau must continually be sensitive to the underlying involvement in urban and regional development in that it should be planned for, guided and accommodated in ways that achieve socially desirable results. In this respect we are only now beginning to try to understand the more basic problems of suburban growth and relationships between metropolitan regions, central cities and regional growth.

Any set of policies and programs addressed to questions of population distribution and the settlement pattern ought to encompass the full spectrum of settlement. The inter-dependence of activities and components within the total urban system is such that policies directed at one component will eventually create flow-on effects throughout the system. These objectives can be achieved only within a healthy economy. Those charged with the task will be engaging in an exercise in futility if the Government fails in its responsibility to preserve a viable primary industry in all its forms. Despite a degree of intellectual self-delusion on the part of a number of those within the Government who deny the source of all true wealth, that is, the good earth, time will prove that a nation neglects this truism at its peril.

The Cities Commission has professed an appreciation of the vital need to pursue its objectives in the closest collaboration with all levels of government. Maximum benefit can be achieved only if the individual levels of government are strengthened by wise and just legislation by the Federal Government. The Government must not presume to undermine the traditional functions of local government without due regard to the wishes of the people. The Bureau of the Cities has a heavy responsibility to contemporary Australia. I hope that its way will be smoothed by a government with the wit to realise that little can be achieved in one area if the whole is not sound. The Opposition is not opposed to the Bill but will remain alert to the need in the funding of such programs that the ordinary Australian not be ground down by taxing to a point where his initiative and hopes of reward are eroded.

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

– in reply- In summing up the debate on the second reading of the Cities Commission (Repeal) Bill 1975, I thank the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), the Opposition spokesman on urban and regional affairs, for his comments and to some extent for his understanding of the present Government’s policy. We expanded the policy on urban and regional affairs to the interconnection of urban affairs because we realised that we could not deal with things in boxes any more; we had to deal with the vertical aspect. Previously, there had been no real understanding of this in this Parliament. I think there still has to be a greater understanding in this Parliament of the intricate problems of urban communities. I was pleased to hear the contribution made by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews). My colleague, the honourable member for Casey was the secretary to the former Leader of the Opposition. He had a great deal to do in the early stages of formulating urban policy. I believe that there has to be a continuity of programs in these urban and regional affairs. I think the Department of Urban and Regional Development that has now absorbed the Cities Commission is trying to do this.

I pay a tribute first of all to those people responsible for the development of the National Urban and Regional Development Authority under Sir John Overall and the leadership that was then given under Mr Eric Warrell who was a vice president of the Sydney Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board before taking over control of the Cities Commission. If it had not been for the leadership of those people, we would not have been able to get off the mark in the development of our policies.

If we look at the development of urban and regional affairs we find, as do those honourable members opposite who were the Ministers responsible for the National Capital Development Commission, that that development is a long term process. It is a pipeline of development and if one ruptures or interferes with the flow of development that occurs over that long pipeline then that effect will be felt years ahead. That is why, with the understanding shown by two of the Opposition members who spoke- the honourable member for Sturt and the honourable member for Wide Bay, it really concerns me that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his reply to the Budget Speech, as reported at page 527 of Hansard of 26 August 1975 said:

We would have suspended the growth centre expenditures. . . .

Suspension means to delay. To suspend the expenditure on the development of growth centres whether they be in Albury-Wodonga, in Bathurst-Orange or on the south-west corridor of Sydney stretching from Holsworthy-Liverpool down, including Campbelltown and the AppinCamden area would be to set back, in fact to destroy, the whole growth centre program. The honourable member for Wide Bay spoke about decentralisation because of over-centralisation. For many years in this Parliament honourable members opposite mouthed words about decentralisation. All they would do was mouth the words. During most of the years from 1947 to 1970 the conservative elements which the Opposition now represents were in government. During that period the population of the non-urban areas fell from 31 per cent to 14.7 per cent of the total population.

We have tried to reverse that situation. The 2 major advocates for reversing that policy and talking about selected growth development were 2 fringe dwellers of the biggest metropolis in this continent. They were fringe dwellers on the outskirts of Sydney. They were the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and myself. We campaigned around the countryside, the Prime Minister doing so even before I did. During the 3 years from 1970 to 1972, we were able to put pressure on the then Government that stirred it from its slumberland. It set up NURDA only in its dying days. In fact NURDA was created only 2 weeks before the last government was defeated. I was grateful for the crumbs that fell from the table because at least the organisation had been set up. It assisted in getting our programs under way and it assisted in making the investigations.

I should like to deal with the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in that regard. The then Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) said in his second reading speech that it was estimated that the population of Australia would be approximately 22 million by the turn of the century. What the honourable member for Mackellar and even Professor Borrie should understand is that I have been campaigning and working on this for at least the previous 3 years. If we were to get a rational urban policy we had to slow up the population growth increase because if one examines records of decentralisation it will be found that Britain has the best record. In the period from the end of the Second World War until about 1970– (Quorum formed). I was saying that Britain has the finest record of any country with a decentralisation policy. It was able to slow up the growth of its major cities in the period between the end of the Second World War and 1970 by about 11/4 million people.

If we could slow the growth of our capital cities by at least 1 million people between now and the turn of the century- bear in mind that our present population is 13 million and that the right honourable member for Lowe stated when he was Prime Minister we would have a population increase by then of 9 million people- we would have to absorb the other 8 million people in our major capital cities, mainly in Sydney and

Melbourne. That is the normal trend. I have said over a number of years that that was madness. I said that we had to work towards achieving a population pattern of an annual increase of approximately 1.1 per cent. Our normal population growth is 1.9 per cent- 1.1 per cent being natural growth and 0.8 per cent representing immigration growth. If we maintained that 1.1 per cent population growth rate till the turn of the century our population would be a little over 17.3 million which would permit us to decentralise our population by at least 1 million and we would have been able rationally to absorb the other 3.3 million in the other capital cities. That was the policy that we were expressing. The policy of my Party is based on that premise.

I recognise the role the Cities Commission has played in the development of decentralisation and the role that the Department of Urban and Regional Development has been able to develop over a period, looking at the overall picture. They have been able to make great progress. I hope this progress will continue irrespective of the difficult days ahead. There are difficult days ahead because although the honourable member for Mackellar accused the Government of certain things the point is that in adopting this irreversible attitude the Opposition members should realise that it is their system which they are tearing down. There has to be some understanding of the responsibilities involved. It is the Opposition’s system, and in refusing to pass Supply it will make sure that -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Earlier I stopped the honourable member for Mackellar. I also have to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this is not a part of the Bill.

Mr UREN:

-Talking about the Opposition’s system, I do respect your ruling, Mr Speaker, but it is the Opposition’s system - (Quorum formed) I close on that point so that the Bill can be passed before we rise for dinner.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 8 p.m.

page 2160

TEACHING SERVICE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Beazley

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The Teaching Service Bill 1975 is a relatively minor Bill. The Opposition supports its substantive provisions. The Bill is designed to make special long service leave provisions for those New South Wales and South Australian teachers who joined the Commonwealth Teaching Service. Insofar as their long service leave entitlements are to be preserved, we support the proposal because it was on the basis that their entitlements in this regard and in others would be preserved that many of these teachers transferred from services where they had been employed for a number of years.

The Bill also makes provision for teachers employed by the Commonwealth Teaching Service to be transferred to the technical colleges that are established in the Australian Capital Territory. The Bill, as originally drafted, did not enable this to be done and the amendments of this Bill seek to expand its operation so that teachers in the service can be engaged’ in those colleges. In his second reading speech the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) said that in considering other amendments necessary to the legislation the Government took the opportunity of reviewing the title of the Teaching Service and indicated that the Bill would seek to amend the title from the. Commonwealth Teaching Service to the Australian Teaching Service. I indicate at this stage that the Opposition intends to propose amendments to the Bill to retain the name of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. We shall do this because at this stage we do not believe there is any reason to change that name.

The Minister gave no real explanation as to the need for the change. He said that it was in accordance with the Government’s general policy. But the teachers engaged by this service are engaged in teaching in the Australian Capital Territory and in the schools in the Northern Territory. They are not engaged in schools throughout Australia. To change the name of the service to the Australian Teaching Service is likely to create confusion. If it does not create confusion it is likely to create in the minds of some the impression of a teaching service that is perhaps superior to or distinct from the teaching services of the States. If the Minister had proposed that the name of the service be changed to the

Commonwealth Territories Teaching Service or even to the Australian Territories Teaching Service the Opposition may have had different views. I invite the Minister’s comment at an appropriate time on those 2 suggestions.

We note that even in the last annual report of the Commonwealth Teaching Service the Commissioner drew attention to the fact that he has relationships and negotiations with the Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth Teachers Federation and the Northern Territory Commonwealth Teachers Federation. Accordingly, we think it would be more appropriate if the name of the Service were to indicate that it involves teachers engaged in teaching service in the Territories of the Commonwealth or, if the Minister prefers so to describe it, in the teaching service of the Territories of Australia. So at the appropriate time I shall move an amendment to retain the existing name whilst seeking from the Minister an indication of his views as to the possibility of incorporating in the name of the service reference to the places where the teachers are engaged, namely the Australian Territoriesthe Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks in regard to the other aspects of the Bill, those that relate to the provisions preserving the long service leave entitlements of teachers who transferred from the New South Wales teaching service and the South Australian teaching service, we support that proposal. We also support the idea that teachers in this service should, at this stage anyway, be capable of being employed in the technical colleges being established in the Australian Capital Territory.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I wish to support the Teaching Service Bill 1975. I had intended to commence my comments in rather a different vein. (Quorum formed). I thank the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) for providing me with a number of honourable members to listen at this stage of the debate. I was just about to say that I had intended to approach this Bill from a different angle until I heard the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) speak about the change of title of the Teaching Service. It seems to me that this Opposition is frightened of the term ‘Australian’. It seems to want to apologise all the time for the fact that this is an Australian Government and that a number of the services it looks after are Australian services. In fact, I welcome the fact that the name of the teaching service is to be changed from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to the Australian Teaching Service. I trunk it is a proper thing to do.

We recognise that there are different systems of education in Australia, some of which have State titles attached to them. Those State systems receive large amounts of assistance from this Australian Government. They do not acknowledge one bit of it. There is nothing wrong with differing systems of education in a country with different services because this can lead to a change in methods, a change in style and a change in systems. The systems should be such that teachers can be exchanged between the various services to look at each other’s techniques.

On 28 September the Australian Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) in a Press release on the teacher exchange program said there was need to promote the exchange of experience between teachers in different States and educational systems. He said that the scheme was being tried in 1 975 with a view to continuation if worth while. I am sure that the Australian Teaching Service will add its quota to these methods and to this information, because the Australian Teaching Service reflects quite a worth while step by an Australian Government in accepting direct responsibility for the provision of primary and secondary education in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. This Bill serves as a reminder that that has occurred, and of the quality of education that is being built up in that system.

Prior to this schools in the Australian Capital Territory were normally served with teachers from New South Wales and those in the Northern Territory with teachers from South Australia. Many of those teachers, with the new acceptance of responsibility by the Australian Government, transferred to the Australian Teaching Service. This Government, as it has in other fields, has complied with the promises and undertakings it gave to those people. First of all it provided special superannuation arrangements for them, which preserved their interest. This Bill provides the necessary preservation of their long service leave conditions to guarantee that they will be better off than they were under State conditions. This has been clearly spelt out in the Bill, and I am happy that the Opposition is not opposing it. Mind you, in another place the Opposition is not likely to make any money available for these sorts of things to happen, and perhaps it will explain that away at a suitable time.

One of the other interesting factors in this Bill is the extension of the Teaching Service to make teachers available to technical colleges established in the Australian Capital Territory. I think it is only proper that the Australian Teaching Service should make provision for this instead of its being dependent on the New South Wales Department of Technical Education, no matter how much co-operation there has been in the past. It is a natural adjunct to taking over primary and secondary education that provision should now be made for technical education.

I mentioned before that the differing services allowed for a difference in systems, methods and aims. I hope that now that technical education has been taken under the cover of this Service the Service will develop its own type and style of education in the technical field. Technical education has been in too many areas the Cinderella of the educational field. Now that we have this opportunity not to run a technical education program by arrangement between an Australian department and a State department but to provide the teachers to the Australian Capital Territory technical colleges in this way perhaps we may be able to start a program of innovation and experimentation in that field which will be of great benefit in the future. As I say, an example of this would be in a teaching exchange program, because one finds, say, in comparing the Victorian system of education with that of New South Wales that there are vast differences. Perhaps the Australian service can benefit by using the experience of both.

I join the honourable member for Sturt in his support for the main portions of this legislation. I am sorry he is ashamed of the title ‘Australian’. I think that he should reconsider this matter and recognise the unique type of teaching service that the Australian Teaching Service will give to the communities in the Australian Territories that it covers.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– in reply- I want to assure the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) that our removal of the word ‘Commonwealth’ is not based on the same objection as Queen Victoria had when she was opposed to the Commonwealth of Australia being called the Commonwealth of Australia because the word ‘Commonwealth’ was associated with Oliver Cromwell and the Ironsides. It might not be a bad educational name to have considering that Oliver Cromwell tried to put up an Eton and a Harrow in every county and to establish a system of universities which did not in fact come into being in England until 300 years after his death. But that is not the point. A strange amendment proposed by the Opposition would eliminate these words: ‘Australian Government School’ means a school conducted by Australia, by the Administration of a Territory or by a prescribed authority, and includes a school conducted in Papua New Guinea by a prescribed institution.

What is still at this moment called the Commonwealth Teaching Service provides 250 teachers on secondment in Papua New Guinea. Some of them will staff purely expatriate schools. Most of them are staffing indigenous schools, but the Government of Papua New Guinea appears to have indicated that it would like purely Australian schools to continue.

There is a problem about the word ‘Commonwealth’ in the world now and that is its association with the Commonwealth of Nations. Very clearly, with Papua New Guinea in the Commonwealth it is going to be confusing to have Commonwealth schools instead of Australian schools in Papua New Guinea, because the people in Papua New Guinea think of us as Australia; they do not think of us as the Commonwealth. By and large, the feeling is that Australia should now be called Australia. Canada does not call itself a dominion any more, although it may constitutionally be the Dominion of Canada. New Zealand does not call itself a dominion any more. I think these words have been superseded in modern usage. They once implied dominion status; they once implied colonial status. The general policy of the Government is to eliminate the word ‘Commonwealth’ and substitute the word ‘Australian’. If those in the Teaching Service Uke to continue to call themselves the Commonwealth Teachers Union or the Commonwealth teaching profession, that is their affair, but the name that has been chosen by the Government for the reasons that I have set out is Australian Teaching Service. I therefore cannot accept the amendments that are designed to reinstate the word ‘Commonwealth’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1.

  1. This Act may be cited as the Teaching Service Act 1975.
  2. The Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972- 1 973 * is in this Act referred to as the Principal Act.
  3. The Principal Act, as amended by this Act, may be cited as the “Teaching Service Act 1972-1975.
Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move 2 amendments together.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr WILSON:

-I move:

  1. In sub-clause (1), omit ‘Teaching Service Act 1975’, substitute ‘ Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1 975 ‘.
  2. In sub-clause (3), omit ‘Teaching Service Act 1 972- 1 975 ‘, substitute ‘ Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972-1975’.

The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), in his reply during the second reading debate to comments I made with regard to the Opposition proposals to amend this Bill, simply dealt with the question whether the word ‘Commonwealth’ should be retained in preference to the word ‘Australian’. He did not respond in any way to my invitation to consider the suggestion of calling the Teaching Service either the Commonwealth Territories Teaching Service or the Australian Territories Teaching Service or in Papua New Guinea calling it perhaps the Australian Overseas Teaching Service. As we know, as of recent weeks Papua New Guinea is no longer a Territory of Australia but is an independent country where Australians employed under the Act which this Bill seeks to amend are still engaged in teaching work. Therefore, I again invite him to respond to that suggestion.

Our purpose in seeking to delete the change from the name Commonwealth Teaching Service is to preserve the status quo whilst the Government considers the suggestions that we have put about the idea of the name of the service being related to the Territories or, in the case of overseas teachers, to the fact that they are teaching overseas. Mr Chairman, in the second reading debate you referred to the importance of having an Australian teaching service just as we have a Victorian teaching service but you failed apparently to understand that the impression would be created, both here and overseas, that the service that employed teachers under the title of the Australian Teaching Service was in fact a superior service and not a service of teachers of equal standard to those in the service of State education departments. Mr Chairman, some of your remarks gave me concern that you would like ultimately to see an Australian teaching service engaged in the employment of all teachers throughout Australia.

We wish to maintain the distinction of roles between the teachers teaching in the services of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia, which operate geographically in the respective States, and the teachers in the service which operates in the Territories of the Commonwealth or, in the case of those teachers engaged in Papua New Guinea, which operates overseas. So I invite the Minister again to give consideration to the idea of the inclusion of the word ‘Territories’ or the word ‘overseas’ in the Bill before the Committee. To achieve that end we propose merely to amend the Bill to restore the present position in which the service is called the Commonwealth Teaching Service.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– In reply to the honourable gentleman I would draw his attention to the speech in which the honourable gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) originally introduced this form of legislation when he said that it was desired to have one teaching service available for the use of the Australian Government anywhere in outside Territories such as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, sometimes anywhere in Australia, in the Territories and in Papua New Guinea. I do not want fragmented names with an overseas teaching service and a territorial teaching service. We think that the name Australian Teaching Service is appropriate because we agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Education when he said that the name should imply a unified teaching service. I have explained the objections to the word ‘ Commonwealth ‘.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 56

NOES: 51

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Title).

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I had a consequential amendment to this clause. If the earlier amendment had been agreed to I would have moved to omit clause 3. If I may have your indulgence, Mr Chairman, the same would apply to clause 7, clause 12 and to the Schedule to the Bill. I make mention of that now to indicate that consequential amendments would have flowed to achieve the objectives I set out earlier.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Does the honourable member intend to persist with those amendments?

Mr WILSON:

-No, I do not now intend to persist with those amendments. Those amendments, to delete clauses, were consequential upon an earlier amendment being accepted. I just want to record our opposition to this clause and the other clauses I mentioned for the reasons I previously outlined.

Clause agreed to. Clause 4.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of ‘Commonwealth school’ and substituting the following definition: - ‘Australian Government school’ means a school conducted by Australia, by the Administration of a Territory or by a prescribed authority, and includes a school conducted in Papua New Guinea by a prescribed institution; ‘;
  2. by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of ‘scholarship’ and substituting the following definitions:- ‘prescribed authority’ means an authority or body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, that-

  3. a ) is established for a public purpose by , or in accordance with the provisions of-

    1. an Act;
    2. regulations made under an Act; or
    3. a law of a Territory; and
  4. is declared by the regulations to be a prescribed authority for the purposes of this Act; ‘scholarship’ means an Australian Teaching Service Scholarship provided for by Part IV; ‘; and
  5. by omitting from the definitions of ‘the Commissioner’ and ‘the Service’ in sub-section (1) the word ‘Commonwealth’ and substituting the word ‘Australian’.
Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I ask leave to move amendments in place of amendment No. 4 which has been circulated in my name. The amendments relate to clause 4, page 2, line 19 and to clause 4, page 2, lines 2 1 to 23.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr WILSON:

In paragraph (b) in the definition ‘scholarship’ omit ‘Australian ‘; and omit paragraph (c).

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 1 1- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2165

SCHOOLS COMMISSION REPORT

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Schools Commission Act 1973 I present the Schools Commission report for 1976 together with a statement by me relating to that report. I also present a short statement by me on the Government’s funding policy for the 4 national education commissions.

Mr Wilson:

– Is the Minister prepared to move that the House take note of the papers? The topics involved in the report of the Schools Commission are of great public interest and I am sure that honourable members from both sides of the House would like the opportunity to debate the contents of the report and its recommendations.

Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2165

MARITIME COLLEGE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 October on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The purpose of this Bill, as the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has already pointed out, is to establish an Australian Maritime College and to provide the machinery for the planning and development of such a college. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition Parties agree in every regard with the setting up of a nautical academy. I have, for a long time, been an advocate of the need for improved training of the men who are charged with the operation of ships. It seems foolish in any sense to insist on high standards of construction and equipment without similar requirements for the men who are charged with the operation of the ships.

Currently all the licensing of ships’ officers is done by the Federal Department of Transport, and the present training schools in Sydney and Melbourne train people for the passing of examinations set by the officers of this Department. Two years ago the Department of Transport proposed a newer structure for the training of masters and mates, the philosophy and content of which were good. It is only proper that from time to time we should look at the syllabus and make recommendations as to its relevance, and we will find as technology improves that some things become more relevant to training; some need to be excised.

With respect, it would not be unfair to suggest that some of the current training is repetitive, redundant and wasteful. The Summers Report has already outlined how this problem may be overcome. I can only repeat that we do need a college. We do need redrafting of the syllabus for the training of ships’ officers and we will get that. In saying this, it is pertinent to remember that ships’ bridges, these days, contain much sophisticated electronic equipment. Yet marine training techniques seem to differ widely from aviation techniques, or even those involved in learning to drive a car safely and successfully. The best place surely for a watch keeper to be taught his job is on the bridge, yet there are no training vessels available for such a purpose. Most of the present teaching is done in the classroom, and then as cadets on ships. But most ships’ officers, conscientious as they are, do not have enough time for this increasingly complex job and, even if they do, they are not teachers. For example, under conditions of reduced visibility, there is no room for error with blind pilotage. Practical and theoretical instruction in the use of radar needs to be done gradually and effectively. A nautical academy is urgently needed to fit this and many other needs. As well, the shipping industry is faced with increased competition in recruitment. It is important, as I have often said as Minister, that nautical training courses need to be more broadly based and, at an education level, appropriate to the abilities of the present entrants. So that not only training, in the sense of fitting the man for the job is involved in this particular philosophy but also the education in the sense of fitting the man for life is of paramount importance.

It was my pleasure in December 1972 to open a symposium on Training for Work at Sea which highlighted the renewed concern with the question of marine training. Pre-sea cadet courses and mid-apprenticeship release courses had been implemented at Sydney Technical College in 1965. The syllabuses for these courses were based largely on the content of the foreign-going second mate ‘s certificate. The working document Training for Work at Sea, circulated by the Department of then Shipping and Transport, contained the following foreword:

The purpose of the training for employment at sea is to ensure that ships are operated efficiently as well as safely. In Australia, as m many other countries, such training has lagged behind the technological developments in ship operation. Where a low level of achievement is combined with lack of incentive, the most effective use cannot be made of the equipment and facilities provided on modern ships.

The compelling call of the sea finds ready response in many young people, but often parents tend to counter the urge. Historically, few other trades or professions have been so thoroughly denigrated in story and hymn. Few have warranted special missions devoted to their uplift. Nevertheless, as a class, seafarers are as worthy and reputable as people in any other calling.

It is evident however, that a special effort must be made to attract to the industry, recruits with higher than minimal educational standard. Career prospects in an industry which carries real status should result in keener participation on the whole operation, lifting not only general standard of performance, but also the outlook and attitude to the industry.

So great are the problems of getting the right people to make a career of the sea that a complete break with the past may be the only effective way of improving the situation.

The paper goes on to point out that, in the field of general and technical education, training available for seafarers is less than that available in major maritime countries and that no courses are available for extra-master mariner. And this leaves the deck officer’s requirement for tertiary qualifications still uncatered for. The paper goes on to describe present training schemes as fragmented, obsolete and too unsophisticated for today’s complex shipping industry. The old demarcation between deck and engine-room skills is no longer appropriate and must be replaced by a new concept of developing an integrated team. As well, the training system needs to be flexible to cope with a wide variety of ships of varying ages and degrees of sophistication. There is, as I have said, little quarrel with these aims. Before it is possible to raise the level of duty requirements for all personnel on ships it is necessary to train them to the necessary degree of competence. As a result there is a great need for a common training centre with essential facilities.

One can but agree with the Minister in speaking of the college, when he says that:

It will be a new and unique institution in the education system of this country, and there are many details of its functions and governance which will call for careful planning.

In fact, emphatic concurrence with point 7 of his second reading speech amplifies the importance and urgency of such a training school. However, this being said, I must also admit to a few points of concern about one aspect of the Bill. Clause 7(1) (a) outlines the functions of the Interim Council in particular empowering it to make recommendations to the Minister with respect to matters relating to the establishment of the College. Of course, the most important question in this regard is the site of such a college. We are all aware of the origins of the naming of the site as Launceston. One can only hope the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) will long remember the lessons he should have learnt from his abortive attempts to win the Bass by-election.

Mr Reynolds:

-You had it in your policy, too.

Mr NIXON:

– Absolutely. In fact, it was agreed to by the Parties on this side of the House long before the Prime Minister offered it. But the Prime Minister is only trying to match us. He did not match us very well because Kevin Newman, the honourable member for Bass, sits in this House on our side while the Government’s candidate is still down in Tasmania. However, it is worth pointing out that, prior to this by-election, the Department of Transport had commissioned a committee of experts to check sites for such a college and to make recommendations on suitability or unsuitability of such sites.

However, the Prime Minister’s grand and unsuccessful entry into the by-election preempted all this. As well, in keeping with the profligate nature of this Government, he went on to mention the mere sum of $22m for this purpose. These 2 points need careful consideration to give maximum impetus to such an important project. Certainly, the point of my exercise now is not to make out a case for denying this much needed infusion of moneys into Launceston. On the contrary, the Government could well give every consideration to expanding a college of advanced education in the disciplines of agriculture, mining, metallurgy and geology. Accident statistics are going up as a percentage of world tonnage and we must take every step to lessen the chances of what is known in marine terminology as ‘acts of God’. Accidents will happen and, rather than cast about for those to blame, it is more useful to follow the practice followed by the aviation industry, and ascertain the cause of the accident and try to avoid its recurrence. But another further consideration must surely be the educational facilities available at the site. Nautical education today calls upon a very diverse background of knowledge. Advanced education in Launceston has only recently been changed from a teacher-training college and the wide spectrum of practical knowledge called for in nautical training is not available. The watch keeping officer of the next decade will be in a somewhat similar position to an airline pilot. He will be in charge of an instrument panel containing navigation, communication, weather, engine and collision avoidance readouts. The required teaching skills are available only at large centres and at the moment in only Sydney and Melbourne. These will need to be available in Launceston. Furthermore, there is the problem of obtaining staff. There is only a limited number of staff qualified in this field and nearly all of them are presently situated in the school in Sydney and Melbourne. They will need to be encouraged to transfer or train extra staff for the jobs at

Launceston. Their present positions, with or without the new college, do not appear to be in jeopardy. Most certificates of competency are now issued in Sydney. Students will have to be positively encouraged to go to Launceston because a course of studies still exists in other States.

One of the prime reasons for changing the present training structure is to bring it within the mainstream of general education and to make available to the master mariner an academic award which is recognised by the community. It is generally recognised that seafaring is not always a lifetime career and a ship’s officer should be able, at some subsequent time, to provide an employer with recognisable documentary evidence of his academic ability. This suggests a choice of several academic awards including the certificate and associate diploma granted by technical colleges, the diploma granted by colleges of advanced education and the degree granted by universities.

However we look at it, there are a number of people in the profession who aspire to executive positions of technical management in the shipping industry, in government departments dealing with shipping, and in the teaching side of shipping. These people need the depth of training provided at a university, and at present courses are not provided for them. Equally, one must assert that the master of a small coaster is not likely to need a university degree. It is as unwise to over-train as it is to under-train. In other words a spectrum of academic levels should be available, each suited to the particular task, and this in turn calls for an educational complex providing a wide range of courses.

It should be pointed out that a complex already exists at the Sydney Technical College and the New South Wales Institute of Technology. Peripheral subjects can be studied within the relative schools at both these institutions. The relationship of these bodies with the proposed college needs to be worked out. Furthermore, the support industries such as shipbuilding and repair, together with the wide variety of ships which use a major port, all need to be available to provide a practical environment for educational observation. What is needed then is a centre which would provide all the necessary student accommodation, staff quarters and sports areas. The point I wish to make is that whatever is the final product it must be viable, realistic and cost-effective. It must be such that it will make a long term and effective contribution to the betterment of the industry. Such a project must be practical rather than political. (Quorum formed)

I appreciate the fact that my colleague has drawn attention to the state of the House. I myself thought that my speech was worthy of a much bigger audience. A few people on the other side of the chamber could learn something if they had the decency to stay in the House. I can only repeat what I have said many times before, that the establishment of a nautical academy is essential to the continuing progress of the shipping industry. I am sure that the city of Launceston will take this institute to its heart and recognise the importance that it will have in the future of the maritime industries in Australia.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

-The speech which the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) has just made is the only speech he has made in recent years with which I fully agree. He said that he was rather pleased that the maritime college was to be established in Tasmania, but I think that deep down he hoped that it would be established in New South Wales.

Mr Nixon:

– No. I would like it to go to Lakes Entrance.

Mr DUTHIE:

– The honourable member did not mention that. Lakes Entrance would hardly be big enough to accommodate a decent dinghy. This legislation gives birth to another new initiative by the Australian Labor Party Government. It sets up a unique institution- a first ever achievement for Australia. It will be established in Launceston, one of Australia’s finest cities. As the honourable member for Gippsland said, the establishment of this maritime college in northern Tasmania will be a real boost to both our employment and economic situation. It should be appreciated in Launceston ‘s education, business and communications circles, but I doubt whether many of them will appreciate it. Launceston is such a Liberal city, run by a Liberal newspaper that tells people what to do, tells them how to think, tells them what to say, tells them when to get out of bed and when to go to sleep.

Mr Nixon:

– Are you saying that they are fools?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that I do not think the people of Launceston will appreciate the college as they should. The reason is that the Labor Government is establishing it. It is a pity that so many people there think that everything this Government does is wrong. They believe that there is not one ounce of goodness left in the Labor Party. However, I believe that the majority of people in Launceston will appreciate what it will mean to our prestige and to the training of these young fellows in the future. As a matter of fact, the first casino in Australia was built in Tasmanianot that I am in favour of that. Tasmania will have the first maritime college in Australia, and I am very much in favor of that.

Tasmania pioneered the system of hydroelectric power in Australia also. It pioneered the woodchip industry and the area schools system. There are many other first-ups for our little island to the south of this continent. I must say out of loyalty to my State that this proposal is not just a by-product of somebody’s imagination. Tasmania was settled next after New South Wales. If people want to see the history of this continent they should go south to Tasmania. The places of historical interest there are absolutely outstanding. I believe that the maritime college also will be good for the tourist industry. People coming from overseas will see the only college of its kind in the whole of the Australian continent.

I pay a tribute to the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), all of whom have played a vital role in bringing this project to fruition. I must also mention the historical side of it. The honourable member for Gippsland said that it had passed through his mind that it would be nice to have such a college in Australia. But he did not get it onto paper. It is a pity that, after so many years in government, honourable members opposite did not get this project on to paper and into the legislation of the Commonwealth. It took a Labour Government- the vile Labor Government, the terrible Labor Government about which the Press raves- to set up this wonderful institution.

The project started on 25 September 1973 when Mr M. M. Summers was appointed the commissioner of the Maritime Industry Commission of Enquiry. On 6 May 1974 he brought down his report. I must congratulate him on one of the finest reports that I have read in my 29 years in this Parliament. I believe that for a one man effort this is a unique document. I have read it almost from cover to cover and honestly, it does him proud. It brought to light ideas, findings, comments, suggestions and history of this industry that none of us knew anything about.

As the honourable member for Gippsland said, if ever there was an industry in this country that was behind the eight ball, hidden from sight and not thought of by the community at large, it was the maritime industry. As long as a ship runs when we get aboard, as long as we have our accommodation and our meals, that is all that most people think about. Right through the range, from passenger ships, big cargo ships down to the fishing boats, this industry has been a Cinderella industry. It has been growing like Topsy. It has been an industry of bits and pieces. It has been left out in the cold until this report came down containing in one volume everything about the industry. Mr Summers has done a first-class job and I would like to recommend him for a knighthood.

Mr Cohen:

– A knighthood?

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes, a knighthood.

Mr Nixon:

– You do not believe in knighthoods. You mean an OA.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes, the Order of Australia would be more appropriate. Anyway, that is a bit of the history of” this industry and in order to complete the story I must say that it was in November 1974 that the Australian Government agreed to implement this recommendation for the establishment of an Australian Maritime College to be associated with, if appropriate, an existing college of advanced education. On 10 June this year the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced that the College would be located in Launceston. Some people would think that decision had something to do with a by-election but I can say quite definitely that it did not as the decision had been worked out before it was known that there would be an election and it had been kept in the pigeon-holes in this place. We in Tasmania are very lucky to get this College. I know that the people of Newcastle put up a big tight to get this College in that area which also is an appropriate place for it.

Mr Cohen:

– Do you mean it could have gone to Newcastle?

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes.

Mr Cohen:

– That is in my electorate.

Mr DUTHIE:

– There you are; we people across the Bass Strait fought a little harder and we got it for Launceston. It was a great victory. It will be established in the Bass electorate held by my colleague on the other side of the fence, Kevin Newman.

Mr Nixon:

– I suppose you know that the Prime Minister was only matching the promise of the honourable Bill Snedden a month before.

Mr Beazley:

– I did it a year before.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is right. I think the facts would show that this proposal was well thought out prior to the by-election which came on very suddenly, and finished very suddenly too. Anyway, it has now been decided to build the Maritime College in Launceston alongside the College of Advanced Education in that city. It is to be built on the campus site as it is thought that the best idea is for the 2 projects to be a coordinated effort. The Maritime College will draw on the experience of the College of Advanced Education in certain subjects. I think it is an ideal set-up to have the Maritime College alongside the College of Advanced Education that we have in northern Tasmania. The Summers report envisaged that initially the Maritime College would cater for about 300 students, rising to about 600 in the longer term. It will not be a small college. The Prime Minister talked of a figure of something like $20m and I think the honourable member for Gippsland mentioned it also.

Mr Millar:

-It was $22m.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Very well, $22m. It could reach that figure by the time it is completed in X number of years, with all the equipment, furnishings and the like. I imagine that the first stage might cost from $8m to $10m. This Bill seeks to allocate $20,000 to get the planning committee or the internum council into being and launched on its work. Most of the hard work from now on will be done not by this Government but by the interim council set up to run this College. There will be about 15 people on that council and they will represent a whole range of interested parties.

Certain courses will fall naturally into the framework of this College, such as the advanced education level for people wishing to become deck, engineering or radio officers on the larger merchant and fishing vessels, and courses for members, of merchant and fishing fleets who wish to upgrade their qualifications or undertake refresher courses. It is expected that there will be a need to provide further training for former marine personnel associated with the fishing and shipping industries, such as fleet managers, marine superintendents, marine surveyors, marine education officers, lecturers, fishing technologists and fisheries officers. The college also will handle a much wider range than that. It is interesting to note that this also is spelt out as follows:

In order to facilitate the provision of these courses, it would be preferable for the Newnham campus of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education to offer diploma or degree-level programs in engineering, applied science and business studies which would for example include the following basic subjects: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, mechanical and electrical engineering, economics, management and legal studies.

The idea is that the College of Advanced Education would be paid so much by the Maritime

College for education in these fields and that the Maritime College might reasonably be expected to provide the following subjects at advanced education level to complement what I have just said: Navigation, nautical astronomy, hydrography, meteorology, aspects of marine science, fishing technology, ship construction and design, marine engineering, shipping practice, marine law and insurance, and sea transport management. That is a hefty program covering almost everything a mariner would need to know, except probably how to vote and that might come along the way.

Mr Millar:

– There were a lot of people at sea in 1972.

Mr DUTHIE:

– There will be fewer people at sea in that sense after this College gets going. It will tidy up all those problems. Mr Summers also said in his report:

The major issues to be dealt with in this report are identified as: whether all those who work on Australian commercial ships are trained to a high enough standard using the present system whether the present methods of training will be adequate for the future whether the present method of certifying crews ‘ competency is suitable now and for the future whether there is a need for more technical training and a higher level of education whether an Australian Merchant Marine College should be established to provide a complete and extended education for seafarers.

That was the sort of program he mapped out to examine and this report answers those questions. He also said:

Up to the present, the training for each of the members of ships’ crews has been non-existent or else piecemeal. For example, applicants for officer, and existing deck officers, have a special task in advancing their positions to learn enough not only to improve their knowledge by working on ships but to pass an examination set by the Department of Transport and obtain a Certificate of Competency.

He then queried whether those things were adequate. He said:

To all those who pass the examination, the Department grants a Certificate of Competency. These Certificates are the only evidence that any deck officer or engineer has to testify proficiency, other than his experience on the job.

Yet these Certificates are mainly concerned with matters of safety. The examinations were set up in an attempt to ensure that an officer will handle a ship in such a manner that he will be acting in a way that is consistent with a knowledge of what he needs to do to sail safely and that he is aware of the laws and regulations setting out the safety requirements.

He went on to say:

The examinations have little to do with the commercial requirements of the owners of ships and the meaning of those requirements to an officer on a modern ship. The examinations are not always up to date in their references to operational requirements on board.

He was quite convinced after examining all phases of employment in our seafaring industry that the industry desperately needed a college of this magnitude. He also suggests that because students will be coming from all over Australia to this college in Launceston, residential accommodation will have to be provided. That will be a pretty hefty addition to the college itself. He said:

Subject to a means test the student would qualify for a living allowance, an incidentals allowance and a travel allowance under the Government ‘s Tertiary Allowances Scheme.

That would come right within the field of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley). Mr Summers continues:

Whether shipowners wish to make payments to students seems to me to depend on the attitude which each shipowner takes.

I understand that the leaders of this project were meeting the shipowners today on some of these issues. He continues:

If a shipowner wants to select his own men before they begin training, then I would think that owner would make some form of payment to those men. I would certainly hope that owners would develop scholarship schemes for students at the college.

That is fair enough. They will not have to pay for their training as such but a scholarship scheme would certainly encourage a greater efficiency by the students going to the college. Mr Summers also said:

The college should obviously be near the sea, and close to a major centre of population with shipping and fishing operations.

I think Launceston and its environs has a population of something like 70 000 people. It is at the top end of the Tamar Valley into which flows two rivers- the South Esk and the North Esk. The South Esk River is the freshest, best river. It flows through Wilmot. North Esk River is a poor, turgid kind of river flowing through Bass. But both rivers end up in the Tamar River which flows 40 miles down to the sea, past the wood chip industry, past Bell Bay and out to the Bass Strait. As I have mentioned, the siting of this college near the campus of the Northern School of Advanced Education is close to all these features that would be required. Mr Summers said:

There should be a small advisory committee to assist the principal of the college. That committee-

This is the permanent one I should imagine- should include representatives of shipowners, seafarers’ organisations, the fishing industry, and the Government Departments issuing Cerificates of Competency.

I say that that particular committee would be one of the most unique in the Commonwealth where there are shipowners and seamen’s union representatives sitting round the same table with the fishing industry boys to work out the problem of higher education. That would be unique and a wonderful combination of people and groups. Mr Summers says:

Later, the college could provide further courses of various kinds. These could include the following: higher level courses in place of those required for the Extra Master and Extra First Class Engineer Certificates. Updating, refresher and specialist courses bridging courses for ratings with the ability to go on to officer levels, a course leading to a qualification for senior ratings other related special purpose courses, such as for marine superintendent or marine surveyors.

One further point I should like to mention is Commissioner Summers reference to recruitment on pages 54 and 62 of the report. He says that trends are continuing in that ships crews are becoming smaller in number, but more skilled as the ships themselves become more sophisticated. This was mentioned by the honourable member for Gippsland. That is the third time that I have mentioned the honourable member in this speech- favourably. It should go down on record.

Mr Nixon:

– Hear, hear!

Mr DUTHIE:

– We are getting along, are we hot, Peter. I think that what Commissioner Summers means is that there is less recruitment required per total tonnage because the ships are becoming more sophisticated, more mechanised and more automated to run. Yet when it comes to recruitment itself, Commissioner Summers paints a remarkable picture. He says:

Of the 946 deck officer entrants, 348 or 37 per cent were recruited, and therefore received some or all of their training in Australia; 598 or 63 per cent came from, and were consequently at least partially trained, overseas.

He went on to say:

The large proportion of entrants from overseas has been a feature right throughout the period. In 1965, 48 per cent of the entrants came from Australia and 52 per cent from overseas. In 1970, only 26 per cent of entrants were recruited in Australia, and in 1973 the figure was 45 per cent. It is clear the industry would have found it difficult to function without the aid of personnel trained outside Australia.

The industry has been less reliant upon overseas sources for engineer officers and for ratings. From 1965 to 1973, 973 or 62 per cent of the total of 1574 new engineer officer entrants came from Australia and 601 or 38 per cent from overseas.

So honourable members can see that this is a very important feature. With this sort of training we look like recruiting 80 per cent of our staff within the country.

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

Mr NEWMAN:
Bass

– I also rise to support the Maritime College Bill very wholeheartedly. I think that before I address myself to it I had better answer some of the things that the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) said. I might add that I have a great respect and liking for the honourable member for Wilmot. However, I am a bit suspicious about his motives here tonight. To repudiate the Government’s policy on knighthoods and to recommend Mr Summers for a knighthood seems to be rather astonishing. I am suspicious and curious as to the honourable member’s motives. I think that possibly he is angling for a knighthood himself when there is a change of government. I must admit that he deserves one for the very honourable service he has given his electorate.

The second point which I think requires some clarification concerns the credit for the establishment of the Maritime College. I do not think really there is any doubt about this. I think it should be put on the record just who is responsible for its birth. In April 1974, in the Liberal Party policy document, The Way Ahead, it was clearly spelt out that we advocated the setting up of a maritime college. More importantly, in March 1975 the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) actually made the definite promise that Tasmania would have a maritime college. So I hope that clears up the record once and for all. The honourable member for Wilmot, 1 think, was also a bit hard on the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). I can assure the honourable member for Wilmot that there was never any question as to where the honourable member for Gippsland would site the maritime college. It was to be in Tasmania right from the beginning. The honourable member for Gippsland was prepared to back that decision right to the bitter end. He never had Lakes Entrance in mind. The honourable member for Wilmot also made some comments about the political leanings of the city of Launceston, but perhaps I shall come back to that point in a moment.

I must say that the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Wilmot have covered the subject fairly well. I shall be as brief as I can, but I wish to make 3 points. Firstly, I wish to emphasise again the need for a maritime college and to pick up some of the points that perhaps have not been covered by the 2 previous speakers. Secondly, I wish to emphasise the suitability of Launceston as the site for the college, although once again the honourable member for Wilmot has covered most of the points there. Thirdly, I wish to describe why a maritime college is necessary for Launceston and

Bass in particular. The advantages that would accrue to our area because of the siting of this college are important, particularly in the present economic conditions. But to come back to the first point, the 2 previous speakers have covered the subject very well. However, there are some aspects that I think need to be written into the record at least.

The first thing I should like to deal with is the need for education for commercial fishermen. There has been a trend away from the fishing industry as it exists. It has probably been characterised by small boats, by one owner boats and by fishermen who tend to keep close to onshore fishing grounds. In the last 2 years there has been a fairly dramatic change from that type of commercial fishing. Now fishing boats are in the order of 200 tons or more. They tend to get further offshore on to other fishing grounds and they tend to operate for longer periods. For example, there are fishing boats which fish the whole year round, going to South Australian waters for 6 months of the year to fish tuna and then they go north to the Gulf to fish prawns. This type of industry needs special education. The masters of such ships need to be educated in the range of subjects that the honourable member for Wilmot listed so well. There are other specialised subjects for commercial fishingdeep water trawling, for example, and the equipment that goes with it including electronic equipment and so forth. There are problems of refrigeration aboard such trawlers and the hydraulics that go with it. There is a need for these commercial fishermen operating the big boats to be trained in food technology and marine biology. They have to have some understanding of international conventions. By this means we may be able to compete with those international trawlers that operate in and about our waters. In Tasmanian waters the Japanese, of course, are very evident.

I might say that according to the research I have done this initiative to set up the Maritime College is welcomed by the Australian Fishing Industry Council which represents the industry, so that is another reason why we need a marine college. I think another aspect that is worthy of note is the fact that safety will be one of the things stressed at the College. This was announced by the Minister for Transport, I think, in his Press release on the subject. The record, particularly of our fishing vessels and small boats, is not good, and safety is a subject which should be introduced as a formal course. Some of the statistics on the matter are a bit frightening. For example, between January 1 950 and June 1972 it has been determined that at least 123 fishing vessels were lost in Australian waters. Because the survey was rather generalised and not many people returned the questionnaire that was sent out it is estimated that probably in excess of 200 vessels were lost. I think that makes the point pretty well. In 1970 fourteen fishing vessels were lost off the Queensland coast in 1973 seventy-six fishing boat casualties were reported to the Marine Operations Centre. I think those statistics are enough to make the point about safety being a necessary subject at the College.

There are some other worthwhile points to be made here. One is a rather hairy one to come to grips with in the present situation between the Federal and State governments in the coordination of education matters, but it is still worthy of note; that is, that it is to be hoped that when this College is established it will be able to co-ordinate and rationalise those courses that are conducted in other States. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) mentioned the centre in Sydney and of course there is the noteworthy Fremantle Technical College in the west that also conducts worthwhile courses. It would be a great pity if this College were established and it lacked the authority to co-ordinate these other courses and mesh them in with the curriculum of the Maritime College. That is all I need say about the first point- the need for the College.

I come to the second point, and that is the desirability of establishing the College in Launceston. The honourable member for Wilmot has stolen my thunder fairly well on this point. Launceston is a good place for this College. It has sheltered waters, the city and dockyard facilities, but more important than anything else it has the College of Advanced Education and that College in Launceston, hopefully anyway when the Government inquiry eventually hands down its recommendations, will not only earn its own autonomy but also we will see an increase in the establishment at that College and the range of subjects that it will teach. That will make it a perfect vehicle for attaching or siting next to the Maritime College as recommended by Mr Summers in his report. In fact it is noteworthy that he went further and said the central maritime college should be part of a college of advanced education and not established separately. Perhaps one point the Minister might like to comment on is why we are establishing an independent maritime college.

In summary, as far as the siting of the College goes, taking into account the things that have been said, I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Wilmot that Launceston is perhaps the very best place in Australia at which that this College could be established. One point should be made here. Some criticism has been expressed. The honourable member for Gippsland mentioned in his speech that there could be trouble in recruiting people to staff the College. I think I can nail that problem here and now because in talks with the principal of the College of Advanced Education he has told me that over the years there has been absolutely no problem in encouraging staff to the College of Advanced Education in Launceston and at the present moment he has a wide range of teaching staff who come from all States and in fact from countries like England, America and Canada. So I do not think we will have any problem in staffing the College.

Perhaps the more important point that I might now finish on is the need for an institution such as this Australian Maritime College in Launceston. I think the lead to why we need it was given by the honourable member for Wilmot. He accused, if that is the right word to use, Launceston of being a Liberal city and dominated by a Liberal newspaper. Well, that is true, but it is not an accusation; it really is a statement of fact. The reason the people of Launceston are inclined that way in overwhelming numbers is that they have seen and suffered the ravages if the Government that sits opposite. The economic situation in Launceston, in Bass and in the northeast of Tasmania, is very critical. Much of the economic woes that now beset us are a direct result of inept government, of -

Mr Beazley:

– I raise a point of order. I appreciate that the honourable member is repeating his policy speech made at a recent by-election but it has nothing to do with the Maritime College.

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

-I think I would uphold the point of order raised by the Minister. All I would point out is that I think the honourable member for Bass was possibly replying to some comment made by the honourable member for Wilmot, but I would suggest that the honourable member for Wilmot was also out of order. I uphold the point of order raised by the Minister.

Mr NEWMAN:

-I take the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, as you said I was provoked by the honourable member for Wilmot. However, it still has some relevance. Perhaps I could tackle the point this way: Launceston is unique in Tasmania because it does not have some of the stabilising commercial and political institutions that other cities in Tasmania have. For example, in Tasmania when economic situations become a Utile tough it can rely on money that comes from the Commonwealth public servants and the State Public Service institutions like the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission, the museums and so on. The people can ride out the economic storms. Tasmania also has some heavy industries in and about Hobart. Again on the north-west coast there are heavy industries which also can at least continue to stimulate the economy when things are bad, but Launceston is a commercial city which depends on the light industries in the city and at Bell Bay. It also depends on the primary industries in the north-east. In this climate, if it is an example without attributing who is responsible for it, we have suffered. An institution such as this Martime College that will be in Launceston come thick or thin, economically will be a stabilising force that will provide money to keep the city going when other things are failing. Therefore the point I make- I intended to make it when I began my speech- is that the city will benefit from the establishment of the Maritime College. In summary, I endorse the Bill because I think it will enhance the skills of the maritime service in Australia. It will help provide a more efficient commercial fishing enterprise in Australia and lastly it will help Tasmania, and Launceston in particular.

Mr COATES:
Denison

There are just a couple of points I would like to make in reply to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) and also to some extent to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). The debate could go on all night as to who thought of what first.

Mr Duthie:

– Does your electorate of Denison not include Hobart?

Mr COATES:

-I will come to that in a moment. The honourable member for Gippsland claimed to have long been a supporter of the establishment of a maritime college. But the question I should like to ask him is: Why did he not do something about it even during the time when he was Minister for Shipping and Transport in a previous government? He may well have thought about it occasionally but he did not do anything about it. In 1973 this Government appointed Mr Summers as a royal commissioner into the maritime industry. One of the specific terms of reference, item 6 in fact, was the training requirements of the industry including the establishment of an Australian merchant marine college. That was in the terms of reference given to Mr Summers in September 1973. He finalised his report in May 1 974. So references by the honourable member for Bass to the proposal being mentioned in policy speeches by the Liberal Party in 1974 and by its leader in 1975 are not relevant. This Government was committed in 1973 to the establishment of a maritime college. The detailed recommendations about how it should be established were referred to Mr Summers who reported to us in May 1 974.

The honourable member for Gippsland obviously has some worries about the College being at Launceston as he made some off-the-cuff remarks about wanting it established at Lakes Entrance. He also queried the Government’s conviction about Launceston. He pointed to clause 7(1) (a) of the BUI and said that the interim council would have to make recommendations with respect of the site of the seat of the College. He raised the question whether the Government would continue to ensure that it will be at Launceston. He completely ignored the fact that clause 4(2) is specifically written into the Bill to provide that the seat of the college shall be at or in the vicinity of Launceston in the State of Tasmania.

Over the last few months there has been a bit of Opposition stirring in Tasmania, raising doubts in people’s minds without any justification about whether the Government would go ahead with its commitment to establish this college at Launceston.

Mr Newman:

– Who said that?

Mr COATES:

-Quite a number of Liberal Party people in Tasmania. They referred also to things like the Antarctic Division headquarters in Hobart and said that the Government obviously will not do anything about that. Yet following the procedures that are laid down that proposal is currently under study by the Public Works Committee as required by the law. In the case of the Maritime College, it was unjustifiable to raise doubts. It has been planned and drafted into the legislation that it be established at Launceston in the State of Tasmania.

I do not want to raise in this place any sign of rivalry between the north and south of the State. I think that is something we should best keep to ourselves. In answer to the earlier interjection of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), Denison of course is in Hobart. All Labor members from Tasmania were supporting the case for the maritime college to go to Tasmania. I was certainly raising the advantages of Hobart which are in existence, but the prime aim was that the College be established in Tasmania. I have long made the point that Australian

Government spending in Tasmania needs to be increased and hence my proposal from very early in the piece about the Antarctic Division. This was a further example of a most appropriate institution to be located in that State and provide additional Australian Government spending for it.

There are a lot of advantages which honourable members who spoke previously have outlined. I shall not delay the House by repeating them. But I think one point that needs to be made is that Tasmania is a good place to study, as to climate for a start. I think students who have to study in the northern parts of Australia have a great disadvantage in concentrating on their work and a milder climate like Tasmania’s is certainly appropriate. Of course the existence of the College of Advanced Education and the Technical College at Launceston means that there can be mutual benefits for those institutions and for the Maritime College and through it, the shipping industry.

As specified in the Bill, there is initially to be an interim council for the College which will make recommendations about the specific details of the functions of the college, its constitution, arrangements for determining financial needs and the way in which it should co-operate with other educational institutions. We are not laying down specifically in this legislation the precise functions of the College because this is a professional judgment that should be made by experts in the field who will be appointed to the interim council.

Once that interim council has made its recommendations a permanent council will be set up and the interim council will cease to exist, and there will be regulations under the proposed Act to specify the functions, constitution and so on. The College will be an autonomous institution. Like all of these major developments a lead time is involved in construction and in setting up the institution. These are inevitable- frustrating but inevitable. However I gather that there is some chance that there could be initial enrolments on a limited scale as early as 1977, with the cooperation of other educational institutions, by the use of facilities which are already in existence. Of course, the major building project involved may not be completed for several years.

I know that the House has other Bills to be passed tonight so I shall complete my remarks. I conclude by saying that I am very pleased that Tasmania was chosen as the site for the College. Launceston deserves to obtain it. It is pleasing that despite a long period of gestation, of mere thinking by the honourable member for Gippsland in the previous Government, this Government has actually done something about establishing the Maritime College of Australia.

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his introductory remarks the honourable member for Denison (Mr Coates) said that I was opposed to the Maritime College being located in Launceston. Facetiously I said I would prefer it to be at Lakes Entrance, but I have recognised for a long time that it ought to be at Launceston.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

– I support the Bill to establish in Tasmania a maritime college. It is an important measure. It is heartening to see the Government finally adopt some of our policies, though it is depressing to note the drawn out process by which it finally decided to act. This Bill provides the start to fulfil a long overdue need to improve training for seagoing personnel, for those operating trading vessels and fishing vessels in the fishing industry. The fishing industry will become a very great industry in Australia. It is a great pity that it has not developed as yet. There are two reasons for that. Basically, it has an inadequate capital structure and availability of capital to fishermen especially the owner-operator fishermen, and secondly a lack of trained crews. This proposal will make a contribution.

The Liberal and National Country Parties were first to announce a policy to establish a merchant marine college. We gave this undertaking in April 1974. It was an undertaking; it was not merely a request to a royal commissioner to tell a government whether it should establish a college. That is what the direction to the royal commissioner was, a request to tell the Government whether it ought to establish the college. We made that commitment and we have stuck by that commitment. We gave an undertaking in our policy at the 1974 election. In March of this year we announced that a Liberal-Country Party Government would site the national merchant marine college in Tasmania and, subject to the approval of the Tasmanian State Government, at a site associated with the northern division of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, that is, in Launceston.

Subsequently, in May 1974, the Government received a report from Commissioner Summers as part of the commission of inquiry into the maritime industry which recommended urgent action to establish a merchant marine college as part of the existing College of Advanced Education, near the sea and close to a major centre of population and fishing operation, as part of the tertiary education system in Australia, funded like any other college of advanced education. The report supported the previously expressed views of the joint Liberal-Country Parry Opposition. I am quite sure that Mr Summers applied himself and reached conclusions on objective grounds. We had anticipated his decision, and no doubt we helped his decision by our commitment. It is disappointing that legislation to give interim effect to the establishment of the Maritime College is only now before the House 17 months after that report was received.

There have been and will continue to be enormous changes in the size and structure of Australia’s shipping industry. The movement in recent years has been towards larger and more sophisticated ships and special purpose ships. This has significant implications for training needs. All the statistics indicate that a modern fleet requires smaller crew numbers with higher skills to ensure greater efficiency and safety. It has long been recognised that Australia is heavily reliant on overseas trained personnel, especially from the United Kingdom. A drying-up of this recruitment can have serious implications for the future development of our shipping industry. Despite the fact that only 25 per cent of the total Australian Work force is overseas born, in the period from 1965 to 1973 63 per cent of deck officer entrants into shipping came from overseas. Forty percent of engineer officer entrants and deck and engine room ratings came from overseas. All of this reinforces the urgency for this college.

Despite the clear need, it took a by-election finally to force the Government to make a move. Tasmanians recall with amusement that if it had not been for the Bass by-election Labor would never have chosen Tasmania for the site. Over the past 3 years Tasmanians have watched the Labor Government decide to establish any number of institutions on the mainland. They have watched the Labor Government actively promote new growth centres and forget existing centres such as Hobart and Launceston, which need encouragement and development.

Mr Coates:

– How can you say that?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member for Denison interjects and asks how I can say that. I can say that because you have failed to look after Tasmania’s interests in this House, and somebody who will care for Tasmania and Australia will soon replace you. Tasmanians have been faced with severe penalties from this Government for being unfortunate enough to be so far from Canberra that they are beyond the gaze of the central machine which has been established here in Canberra. They have not been adequately represented by the Labor members from Tasmania. That is why the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) got such an overwhelming vote in the by-election.

It took a by-election, and a panic stricken Government, to remember Tasmania. The Liberal and National Country parties have never forgotten Tasmania. We have published detailed policy statements on a range of matters of significance to Tasmania, of which the Maritime College is only one. We have got a bigger job to do, but we will do it; the Labor Party will not. Our early announcement to site the Maritime College in Tasmania months before the Government was forced into it by the Bass by-election is an instance of our genuine concern. Every member of the Opposition is committed to a policy program to ensure that Tasmania is no longer neglected. Tasmania is as much a part of Australia as is any other State, and we are not prepared to allow Tasmania to remain a depressed State, as it now is. Labor has treated Tasmania as the Commonwealth ‘s poor cousin.

Mr Beazley:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating the Maritime College Bill. The right honourable member for Bruce is making a long statement on policies in relation to Tasmania that has no relationship to the Bill.

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I think I can rule on the point of order now. I think the right honourable member realises he is allowed some passing reference to matters outside the Bill and will carry on with the discussion of the Bill.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Incomes and savings are lower in Tasmania than in any other State. Unemployment is higher. That attitude must cease. Under a Liberal-Country Party Government it will cease.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I directed the right honourable member’s attention to the position in referring to other matters. I think probably some latitude has been allowed in the debate. I invite him to come a bit closer to the Bill. He is getting very wide of the mark.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Tasmanians have learnt a valuable lesson from the history of this proposal for a maritime college. Under Labor, Tasmania apparently benefits only when there is an election, for it was in the Bass by-election atmosphere that the Government announced a decision to establish a maritime college in Launces.ton. It is only at election time that Labor remembers there is an island State in Australia. Tasmania will benefit from the next election, because policies will be announced then which will commit all the parties, and especially the Liberal and Country parties in government, for other measures just as valuable to Tasmania and parts of it as the Maritime College is to Launceston. There will he a change of government and Tasmania will be represented by 5 members of the Liberal-Country Party Government who will press Tasmania’s case on the floor of this House energetically and effectively, as the case was pressed for this Maritime College to be established in Launceston, together with every other member of the Liberal and National Country parties. Let me say that Tasmanians will have no stronger advocate for their cause than myself.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– in reply- I think some substantial points in the speech of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) need to be answered. The right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) has been labouring to prove who is the most ancient mariner when it comes to advocating a maritime college. I am one of those who regret that the Liberal Party did not regard him as the ancient mariner but merely as the albatross around its neck and removed him from leadership. The testimonies that he was giving himself for the appreciation in Tasmania for the Liberal Party, of course, sit very ill on the results of the election in 1972 following which the Liberal Party was without a Tasmanian seat in this Parliament. The former Liberal member for Denison departed from the State saying that it was a Labor cesspool. So there are some strange features about that.

First of all, I would like to answer the point raised by the honourable member for Bass and the right honourable member for Bruce, who both spoke of the Maritime College as being a college of advanced education. It is not going to be a college of advanced education in the sense of one that is conducted by the State in Tasmania. It is going to be drawing its students from all over Australia, so the decisions in education in this College will not be vested in the Tasmanian Government or in institutions of the Tasmanian Government as they are in a college of advanced education in Tasmania. I know that the Tasmanian Government regards them as autonomous but the Tasmanian Government is primarily concerned about the recruitment of students from that State to its higher educational institutions. This College will not be recruiting its students from Tasmania. It will be recruiting them from all over Australia so it has aspects which will be quite unique. It will be a national institution. The right honourable member for Bruce had no recognition of that in any part of his speech. I think the comments that there was a retroactive inspiration from something he said in March 1974 to the appointment of this Commission in September 1 973 are quite childish. To tell us that we delayed the establishment of the institution for 17 months when our predecessors did not establish it in 23 years is even more childish.

The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) mentioned the need for a training vessel. I should like to inform the honourable member that that is an inherent part of the intentions for the Maritime College, as outlined by the Summers report, and is currently being developed further by interdepartmental planning. We recognise that that is essential. At today’s meeting between the Maritime College interdepartmental committee and the merchant marine industry, that is the unions and the employers, there was a general acceptance that Launceston is a feasible site for an effective Maritime College and that the unions and the employers will co-operate in the further planning of the College. I should like to say one other thing about the discovery of a likely site in Tasmania. I cannot recall the actual date of my visit to Tasmania well over a year before the Bass byelection was dreamt of, but on television and in the Press I spoke about the need for this institution to be in Tasmania. I will not say that a Government decision caused it to be sited there. It is an idea which has exactly the same status as the ideas of the Liberal Party that were mentioned as coming later. The action of establishment is what counts.

The honourable member for Gippsland mentioned the interim council’s function of advising on the site of the College. That relates only to the detailed determination of a precise site at Launceston.. The general decision that Launceston is the site is not in question. The honourable member for Gippsland mentioned also the question of the limitations of the education facilities now available at Launceston. It is not intended that all the educational requirements of the Maritime College will be met by the existing facilities. The Maritime College can be expected to make use of those science, engineering and other units that are readily available on the Newnham campus of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education and to make its own arrangements for whatever other educational units are appropriate. The Newnham campus of the College of Advanced Education has many courses and facilities that could be extremely useful to the Maritime College. I would say also that the technical education facilities at Launceston, if they are to service this College, will obviously have to be upgraded.

The whole question of the available education facilities in Launceston is currently under consideration by the Karmel committee of inquiry into post-secondary education in Tasmania. I toured the north of Tasmania and was concerned at something that I had not known previously which is the vehemence with which the north and north-west of Tasmania think that educational facilities are concentrated in the south. It was for that reason that the committee was established to consider the distribution of tertiary and post-secondary educational facilities in Tasmania. It is a top level committee of inquiry which is proceeding. The point is that it will now take into account in its decision on the Maritime College how any facilities which can serve the Maritime College will need to be upgraded. So a number of co-ordinated inquiries are taking place at the same time. I gather that this measure is welcomed by both sides of the House and I will not reply at any greater lenght.

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 2177

NAVIGATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 October on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The Opposition supports the provisions in this Bill to amend the Navigation Act 1912-1973. 1 will deal briefly with each of the areas covered by this Bill and then consider some general matters in relation to the Australian shipping scene. The proposed amendments to the Navigation Act 1912-1973 will extend the provisions of the principal Act to such matters as crewing and provisions relating to conditions of service and safety on off-shore vessels engaged in activities such as oil exploration and production. Thus oil drilling rigs, oil production platforms, construction vessels and barges, seismic survey vessels and all other types of mobile structures will be brought within the ambit of the Navigation Act.

Although the Opposition supports the principle that the provisions of the Navigation Act should apply to such off-shore industry vessels, especially as we are advised that the most prospective areas for further discovery of oil and gas in Australia lie off-shore, I think the House should be aware that the policies being pursued by certain trade unions are creating chaos in sections of the off-shore industry. I refer in particular to the demands that were made by the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union in respect of the workers employed in the construction of the Bass Strait oil installations. We have seen reports in recent weeks of welders being paid more than $30,000 a year and of the unions waging strike action against contractors on trumped up excuses which have had no relevance to wage justice or the legitimate working conditions and requirements of the men engaged in this work.

The men have gone back to work today after accepting an offer of wage indexation on top of their previously negotiated award. Weeks of time at great cost have been lost to the nation for no purpose. The men made it clear from the start that they wanted to work and it is a pity that the union leaders did not take more notice of their rank and file. The vote was about ninety-five against going on strike and six in favour and yet the men. were forced out by the hotheads. It would be a help if the Government could use its newly acquired powers over vessels engaged in off-shore industry to curb these flagrant abuses which the left wing unions are making in this industry. If the activities of the militant unions continue future oil supplies from Bass Strait will be threatened and the vital energy needs of this country will be placed at risk.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) stated that the definitions of off-shore industry vessels contained in this Bill are the same as those contained in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. The Minister then stated that the provisions in this Bill relating to the off-shore industry are thus placed on the same constitutional basis as the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. As all honourable members are aware, the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 adopted the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea which were drawn up in 1 95 8. These comprise a Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and a Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Convention on the Continental Shelf contains provisions relating to off-shore industry vessels. Article 5(1) states:

The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation . . . nor result in any interference with fundamental oceanographic or other scientific research carried out.

Article 5(11) states:

The Coastal State is entitled to construct and maintain or operate on the continental shelf installations and other devices necessary for its exploration and the exploitation of its natural resources.

By the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1 973, the Commonwealth also took the further step of declaring that sovereignty in these off-shore areas lay with the Commonwealth.- There appears no doubt that if the High Court declares the Act to be a valid Act the Commonwealth will have sovereignty over these off-shore waters. Sovereignty will mean that there should be a clear power to control shipping and navigation in these navigable waters.

I know that previously there has been a gap in the constitutional power relating to authority; in these off-shore waters. Marine courts of inquiry have highlighted them. The Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1928 recommended constitutional changes in this area and there was a full exposition of the difficulties in this area by the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. The amendments have merit but it is surprising that the Government has anticipated the decision of the Court. If the sovereignty as claimed is not granted by the High Court there will be added problems. However, for the Government to anticipate the result of that decision is improper and I must say is typical of the Government’s conduct in relation to its whole role with the High Court.

This Bill also contains provisions which amend Part II of the Navigation Act 1912-73 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. Formerly the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act was identical in the respect of crewing matters for visiting British ships with the provisions contained in Part II of the Australian Navigation Act 1912-73. Since the changes to the British Law have been made it would create difficulties if the Australian law was to apply to visiting British ships.

The definition of a visiting British ship contained in clause 4 of the Bill makes provision for regulations which stipulate which ships are not visiting British ships. The aim of the definition is to distinguish between vessels which call at an Australian port in the course of a voyage and vessels which are registered in London but whose main work is in Australian trades. However, the definition does not cover certain classes of vessels, such as vessels under charter parties for a period of 12 months or 2 years. There is a considerable volume of Australian bulk exports at present being carried in British registered vessels under continuous voyage or time charters for a period which may range from 12 months up to 2 years.

The question that must be asked is: Does the Minister propose to publish regulations which will cover all such vessels? I consider it important that this issue be clarified so that Australian charterers may know whether British or Australian law applies to the vessel under charter to them.

One of the major provisions contained in this Bill relates to the reporting of the movement of ships around the Australian coast. The need for such a system was demonstrated by the loss of the Blythe Star in 1973. Since that time a ship reporting service has been operating on a voluntary basis. This Bill will add a new division to Part 4 of the Navigation Act incorporating the ship movement reporting scheme. The Opposition acknowledges the Work by the Government in this area and the interest with which the Minister has pursued this matter.

This legislation is the first of its kind and the Government has circulated information regarding the ship reporting scheme to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. While the Opposition commends the Government for its diligence in this matter, it must be pointed out that the basis of any international ship movement reporting scheme is a world-wide system of navigational aids. Such a system was proposed in the late 1960s by the United States and, I remind the House, is known as the Omega navigational system. At present, stations have been constructed in North Dakota, Hawaii and Norway. In order to cover the surface of the globe, 8 stations need to be constructed, and Australia has been recommended as the location for a station in this area of the world.

For nearly 216 years the Government has blocked the construction of an Omega navigational station in Australia. The agreements covering existing stations demonstrate clearly that the Omega system can in no way be regarded as a United States secret weapons installation, although the left wing of the Labor Party might believe it to be so. Under agreements with Japan, France and Liberia, the United States provides only the transmitter, the atomic clock and the control electronics which assure signal uniformity. The host countries construct, control, operate and own the stations on their soil.

An international Omega policy board is to be established with representatives from the 7 countries which will operate the stations, and the United States Coast Guard will serve as systems manager. As I said, under the influence of the socialist left wing of the Labor Party, the Government has ignored the true nature of the Omega system and allowed a campaign of fear and uncertainty as regards the use of the stations to be waged. I would like to know from the Minister when he is replying what he is doing about the Omega stations. As I understand it the last thing in the internecine warfare in the Labor Party in respect of this matter was that by some mischance or other some compromise position was reached. But as far as the nation at large knows Omega is still in the pigeon-hole. It was poked there by the Minister to be left there for the term of its natural life.

For the Minister to claim that he has introduced legislation for ship reporting which is the first of its kind in the world, is a joke when one looks at the record of his Party and the Government in blocking the construction of a navigational aid station in Australia which comprises an essential link in a world-wide system of navigational reporting stations. This is just another example of the ignorance and incompetence of this Government in matters connected with Australia’s maritime industry.

This Bill contains provision which will amend Part 8 of the Navigation Act. This part deals with the limitation of ship owner’s liability in respect of loss of life or personal injury to any person on board a ship or loss of or damage to any property on board a ship. Importantly, it also deals with limitation of liability relating to injury or loss to persons or property whether on land or water arising from the act of any person on board a ship for which the owner is liable. The Bill will raise the low limits on ship owner’s liability which are contained in the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and which still apply in Australia.

The 1957 Convention on the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships attempted to raise and widen the limits of ship owner’s hability. The owner of a British vessel was excluded from liability for loss or damage which occurred without actual fault or privity on his part, if goods are damaged by fire or theft while on board the ship. Similarly, as regards loss of life or personal injury, the liability of an owner of a British ship may be limited where the loss or injury is caused by any person being carried on the vessel. The 1957 convention extended the limitation of liability to the master and crew of a vessel.

The Minister in the second reading speech criticised the previous Government for not ratifying this Convention. However the Minister should know that many of the vital provisions of the Convention have been excluded by many countries which have signed the Convention. This is specially so in the case of the major maritime nations. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the world’s shipping is registered in countries which do not adhere to this Convention. The upshot of the watering-down of the Convention by the absence of many of the maritime powers is that its value as an international legal regime has been significantly diminished.

For this Government to now adhere to the Convention and adopt the various provisions which increase the liability to be borne by Australian ship owners, while overseas ship owners bear a lesser liability is indicative of the Government’s desire to strut across the international stage and appear as the great defender of international laws. But the fact is that other countries which play a much larger role in maritime affairs than ourselves have chosen not to adhere to the Convention in its entirety. It is surely not in the interests of Australian snippers to be burdened with the full provisions of the Convention while the large proportion of the world’s shipowners are not. It only adds another cost to the already considerable number of extra costs which Aus.tralian shipowners are forced to bear.

This Government has enunciated a policy of 40 per cent of Australian goods being carried in Australian vessels. However, measures such as this only hinder and frustrate the achievement of such a policy. In accepting the Convention, the Government has imposed a further burden on Australian shipowners. This is the exclusion of clause 1 (c) of Article 1 of the Convention which limits the liability of shipowners for damage to public property such as wharves and harbour installations. The practical effect of this is that shipowners in Australia will have to pay massive amounts in liability insurance to cover these increased risks. This will lead to significantly higher sea transport costs within Australia. No doubt the inspiration for this action came about as a result of the Hobart Bridge disaster. However, what shipowner could afford to bear the burden of liability insurance against such accidents? These are risks which should be borne by the Government. Indeed, why should shipowners have to pay for a wrongly constructed bridge which, at a time of accident, collapses so easily involving great expense? The cost of the Hobart Bridge episode would break most shipping companies, even some of the major ones, particularly because of the way in which costs are running up as a result of inflation in this country.

The public bears the ultimate cost in any case whether it be through higher transport costs or through taxation. But whereas the latter comprises the cost of the risk only the former contains the additional element of the profit which insurance underwriters gain from bearing the risk. It is clear therefore when one considers some of the implications of Australian adherence to the Convention on limitation of shipowner’s liability, that the Government has rushed into this without giving due thought to all the issues involved. Finally the Bill contains amendments which upgrade the training and qualifications of ships’ officers. These steps are necessary as a result of the Government’s decision to establish an Australian Maritime College.

I stated earlier that I would use this debate as an opportunity to make some general comments on the larger question of Australian shipping policy, arid to indicate some of the thinking of the Opposition in this matter. I believe that all parties in the Parliament recognise the desirability of encouraging an Australian mercantile marine. However, the implementation of such a policy is fraught with difficulties, some of them insurmountable. As a member of the National Country Party, I am particularly conscious of the cost to Australian producers and consumers of our reliance on overseas shipping. For over a century, Australia’s primary producers have lost a significant proportion of their return by not shipping their goods to the markets of the world. Because of our dependence on foreign shippers, we have had to meet an annual freight bill which currently exceeds $ 1,000m. Shipping represents the largest single item in the invisible transactions which form an essential part of our foreign trade. With the advent of the vast mineral developments, Australian interests have lost even more by not shipping their product. Even where the expenses involved in shipping are not a cost to the Australian producer, the loss of the opportunity to make a profit on the transport of our goods to overseas markets is a loss to the income of the producer and a loss to the nation’s total income. The alternative is to try to build up an Australian fleet.

However, this is no simple matter. One of the main obstacles to bringing about a significant Australian shipping industry is the attitude of the maritime unions in Australia. The wage levels, crewing requirements and living conditions which have been imposed on Australian shipowners make it quite uneconomic for Australian vessels to compete against vessels flying foreign flags, especially those registered in flag of convenience countries. I believe that, by their exorbitant and sometimes outlandish demands, the Australian maritime unions have made it impossible for this country to develop a large and strong shipping industry. However, I also believe that, while the maritime unions are the direct cause of this situation, there are larger considerations which lie behind their actions. It seems that basically we are not a maritime nation. There does not exist in Australia the incentive for men to go to sea to earn their living. As long as Australian seamen form a minority group and can succeed in exerting pressure on shipowners to increase wages and improve conditions, because they know that there is no one else who will man the ships, we will never have a worthwhile shipping industry in this country.

It is difficult to say what steps ought to be taken to remedy this situation. The establishment of an Australian Maritime College is to be welcomed as a step towards encouraging the development of a spirit of professionalism amongst maritime employees in Australia. I think that, if we face a situation where the number of people engaged in the maritime industry in Australia has declined to such an extent that the whole idea of Australian-owned and Australian-operated and Australian-crewed ships is simply not possible, perhaps we ought to consider the possibility of using labour from other countries to help man our vessels. The Opposition considers that another reason for general lack of interest on the part of Australians in investing in ships is the confused state in which we find our laws relating to shipping. The reports of the commission of inquiry into the maritime industry on this subject will be awaited with interest.

One of the reasons for the unfortunate legal state of affairs in which the Australian shipper finds himself is lack of clear-cut Constitutional division of power as regards shipping. The States possess power over shipping within their own coastline, while the Commonwealth has power over interstate and overseas shipping. Furthermore the State powers over shipping and navigation are the powers which the British Parliament possessed in 1901. Subsequent developments do not apply to State laws. In order to encourage a viable shipping industry in Australia, there must be some unification of the shipping and navigation legislation which applies to ships operating on the Australian coast. This can only be achieved by co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States and not by confrontation. Another requirement is that the whole basis of the legislation regulating our national shipping industry, the Navigation Act 1912-1973 requires rethinking.

The Navigation Act was enacted at the height of Britain’s mercantile power. The Australian Act, although based in many respects on the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 did not discourage or make incursions into the powers of the British Shipping Acts. Australia will develop its own shipping industry only if we have legislation which gives much more encouragement and protection to Australian vessels. Many of the provisions of the Navigation Act 1912-1973 require rethinking. That work commenced in about 1970 or 1971 when Mr Tom Williams, then of the Department of Shipping and Transport, commenced full time on the task. He has been joined now by probably one of the most able people in the Public Service of Australia, Mr Mai Summers, in the re-write of that Act.

The changes which have occurred in world shipping since the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 have been far-reaching. The emergence of national flags and national encouragement of shipping has completely altered the assumptions on which the Navigation Act was based. I hope that Mr Summers will investigate some of these questions and make recommendations as to how we can draw up a better legislative basis for the encouragement of an Australian shipping industry. Sir, the Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– I wish to direct my remarks on this Bill particularly to those parts of it which deal with off-shore operations. We know how important those operations are to production of oil in Australia. We know how dependent Australia is on the oil production in Bass Strait. We also know the potential for oil and gas production in other off-shore areas of Australia, particularly off the North-west Shelf. It is intended by this Bill to give to the Commonwealth Government power to make regulations with respect to certain vessels and other structures used in connection with off-shore operations. For the first time that power will come to the Commonwealth Government under the Navigation Act.

As the industry is so vital the Opposition is very concerned about the militant union action which has been taking place in recent weeks in the Bass Strait fields. This was mentioned by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). Led by the militant left wing officers of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the welders in particular have held up the construction of off-shore oil structures which are necessary to increase the production of oil from the Bass Strait fields, which production is vital to the future domestic energy requirements of Australia. It is satisfying that the strike has been settled. It is most unsatisfying to find that unionists who did not want to strike were compelled to do so under the influence of the militant left wing officials conducting wage negotiations in that area. The fact that after all these weeks of strike the union has accepted wage indexation- it fought bitterly against it before- only highlights the absurdity of the action that was taken and highlights how damaging it has been in delaying the construction of those necessary off-shore structures. That is one aspect of the intrusion by the Commonwealth Government into this field. We would have hoped that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) would have exerted some influence on those unionists to prevent such a damaging strike. We would like to hear from him that in the future, in contrast to the past, he will exert some influence to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

I want to mention also the almost inevitable conflict which will emerge if this legislation is passed. I refer to the conflict between the Navigation Act as it would be amended and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act which is presently in operation in respect of the production of off-shore oil and gas. It is rather ironic that this Bill in respect of off-shore vessels and other structures should proceed upon the basis of the constitutional validity of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973, which is presently under challenge in the High Court as being beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. It is also ironic that this amendment to the Navigation Act proceeds upon the basis of the constitutional validity of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act to which I have already referred. It is ironic because the former- not late lamented but certainly former- Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean) have all said that it is impossible to enter into any dealings with the States or for the Commonwealth to grant in co-operation with the States, under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, any exploration permits or production permits because of the pending challenge in the High Court to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. Those honourable gentlemen say that the Commonwealth’s hands are tied until that challenge is finalised. We know why the honourable gentlemen say that their hands are tied. It is plainly because if the High Court should uphold the validity of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act this Government would want to take unto itself complete control over all exploration and exploitation of natural resources off-shore from Australia- not only oil and gas but also other minerals that may be obtained from the sea bed.

So at the same time we have this Government relying on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act under challenge in the High Court and acknowledging the validity of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act under which this Government will not operate. There could be nothing worse for efficient off-shore operations than for operators not to know which Act applies to them- the Navigation Act as amended by this Bill or the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, the provisions of which apply to off-shore structures, offshore vessels, drilling rigs, barges and the like. I would like to hear from the Minister how it is proposed by this Government that any conflict or confusion is to be resolved. Has the Government had any discussions with the States to resolve this conflict, this competition? As the honourable member for Gippsland indicated, the Government has not had any consultation with any of the States. What a poor method of administration it is for the Minister for Transport to ignore the States which are charged with the responsibility, in co-operation with the Commonwealth, for the administration of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Does the honourable gentleman deny the interest of the States in the Act? Does he deny the interest of the States in the effect of the amendments to the Navigation Bill which he is now presenting to the House? Why is it that the Government has not had any consultations with any of the States, not even with the Labor States? We could perhaps understand that the Government would not be too happy with the non-Labor States, but why has it not had consultations with its friends in the Labor States of South Australia and Tasmania? Perhaps the Minister can tell us that during this debate.

The Opposition is concerned with 3 aspects of this Bill in regard to the off-shore areas. The first one I have mentioned is in regard to the assumption of responsibility under this Act for matters that are presently subject to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. The second aspect of the Bill concerns its effect on the industry, particularly on the employment of crews and staff in off-shore areas. How does the Minister see the impact of this Bill and the regulations proposed to be made under the new section 8A, subsection (5)? Finally, what implications are there for off-shore operators in relation to requirements with which vessels have to comply? Certainly it is indicated by the regulations that certain requirements will be introduced in regard to the construction of off-shore vessels and units, the equipment that must be carried, machinery and safety devices- obviously there must be safety requirements for off-shore vessels and structures as there are for ships- and the other matters which are referred to as being within the power to make regulations affecting these offshore structures and vessels. We would like to have some clarification from the Minister with regard to these matters because it is important for operators who are already there and who, we hope, will be moving into the off-shore areas in greater numbers than we have seen in recent times, to know the implications of the exercise of the power to make regulations with respect to their operations.

Debate interrupted.

page 2182

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being half past 10 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Charles Jones:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2182

NAVIGATION BILL 1975

Second Reading Debate resumed.

Mr VINER:

- Mr Speaker, the questions I have raised, deriving directly from the proposed provision of the Navigation Act, are accentuated when we have, as I have pointed out already, the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act operating off-shore in respect of the same structures. I would have thought that it would be much more sensible administration to have these off-shore operations controlled by one piece of legislation in a code so that the people and companies affected know where to go. Clarity is available through the operation of a single code whereas I fully expect there will be confusion with the continued operation of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the operation of these new provisions of the Navigation Act. Why is it that the Government has chosen not to have one piece of legislation operating as a code to affect off-shore operations but rather to have these 2 pieces of legislation operating not in parallel but in conflict?

The introduction of these provisions of the Navigation Bill also would appear to be in breach of the Commonwealth-State agreement relating to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. It may be that the Minister for Transport did not consult any of the States who are parties to that agreement because he knew, or believed it possible, that there would be a breach. In that case, rather than have the States tell him in open discussion that they believe that there is a breach of that Commonwealth-State agreement he has chosen to introduce this legislation into this House and to try to get it through quickly simply by use of the weight of numbers on the Government side. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House his opinion as to the validity of the inclusion in this Bill of the provisions which affect off-shore operations. Does the Government consider that the Bill contravenes the CommonwealthState agreement with respect to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act or is it that it does not consider that that Act has any operation because it believes that the Seas and Submerged Lands Act is invalid?

It is a serious matter for the States to believe that there is a breach of a Commonwealth-State agreement and to find the Minister introducing this Bill without consultation with them. If ever we are to have a spirit of co-operative federalism within Australia there must be the fullest and frankest consultation and discussion with the States whenever the Commonwealth proposes to introduce legislation which is going to affect the powers and the authority of the States under their own legislation or, more particularly, legislation to which they are a party with the Commonwealth.

It is indicative, Mr Speaker, of the lack of concern that the Commonwealth has for its relations with the States that it has chosen to proceed in a manner which could well be in breach of the Commonwealth-State agreement and without consultation with the States. Naturally enough the States are concerned at the impact of these proposed provisions on their powers and authority under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Naturally they would have preferred the Minister to consult them. They ask now that at least in respect of these provisions the Government delay proceeding with them through this House for but a short time so that the States may have consultations with the Government. That is not an unreasonable request. I am sure that the States would be prepared to co-operate fully with the Minister to see that a sensible code applies to off-shore operations in the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

What are the States to do about their power and authority under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act? Are they to continue applying it in respect of these structures as if that legislation is valid? There is no reason to suggest that it is not valid. This Government has never chosen to repeal that legislation. It has allowed it to continue on the statute book. It certainly has not cooperated with the States in oil and gas exploration and production. Nevertheless it has allowed that legislation to continue on the statute book. So what are the States to do? After this Bill has passed through this House and another place does the Minister propose to advise the States what their position will be? If that is the intention of the Minister perhaps he would be good enough to show courtesy to this House and tell us, not in detail, what will be the nature of that advice.

These are not merely incidental matters. This Bill is not a trivial piece of legislation. It is very important to the efficient and effective continuance of off-shore operations with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. It can have the most serious financial implications for operators in a field which we already know is a high risk area. It is not something that ought to be treated as lightly as it has been treated by the Minister. I have indicated that there are many questions remaining unanswered about these provisions and I ask the Minister to show the House the courtesy of dealing with them.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

-in reply-I did not intend to speak in reply to this debate because all the points brought up, firstly by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), were adequately answered in my second reading speech when dealing with limitations. Those matters have all been spelled out. The limitation of liability of the owners of sea-going ships has been spelled out in the second reading speech. Obviously the honourable member for Gippsland read that speech because he quoted extensively from it. All those things were spelled out so why should I go through the exercise of explaining them again and again? The Australian maritime industry should have had this legislation amended long ago because the convention was ratified in 1968.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) talked a heap of garbage with regard to the States. He had nothing to say and he just warbled and warbled on about the lack of consultation between the Australian Government and the States and how we have to be cooperative with them. I have just checked with some officials of my Department and they advise me that we sent copies of the second reading speech and of the legislation to each of the States. I have received no response from them. None of them have yet -

Mr Nixon:

– It is too late.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-The honourable member for Gippsland should not be too anxious to interject. He should wait until I have finished my remarks.

Mr Nixon:

– It is too late, though, Charlie.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I know that it is late. I sent copies of the speech and the legislation to the States. I have had no response from them. They have not written to me objecting to any parts of the legislation they have not written to the Department objecting to any parts of the legislation. The honourable member talked about all these shocking complaints by the States. I have not received any. We have had consultations with them; we have used the avenues of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, and the Australian Association of Port and Marine Authorities. During the last meeting that I attended of the Authority, there were discussions on this matter. Certainly there was no agreement and the whole position is that it is not possible to get any agreement from the States, in particular, Victoria. Victoria is the most obstructionist State Government in this country.

The honourable member talks about cooperating with the State but we can get no cooperation from Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria in particular. We did have consultation with them and on the terms of this Bill we believe that we have an understanding and agreement with the West Australian Government. So when the honourable member for Stirling speaks in the vein in which he spoke here tonight, it is absolute garbage. He did not know what he was talking about. If the States have had any objections to this legislation, they certainly have not written to me. They certainly have not corresponded with my Department. They certainly have not indicated to me in any way that they objected to the legislation. These are the facts and not the garbage that we have had to put up with from the honourable member for Stirling.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

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

page 2184

ADJOURNMENT

Public opinion Polls- Scout and Guide Movements

Motion (by Mr Charles Jones) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-This evening I wish to draw to the attention of the Parliament the methods used to conduct polls by the firm of The Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd. The results of these polls are published nationwide and purport to be the results of a representative secret poll of citizens. But the polls are not secret. Under the method of interviewing, the name and address of the interviewee is recorded by the interviewer. Then the ballot paper is identified later and correlated with answers given to other questions on occupation, religion, nationality, country of origin etc and economic class. The conduct of the political poll is, in my view, a flagrant breach of privacy by the firm and needs to be brought to public notice. Recently, correspondence instructions to interviewers were brought to my attention by a responsible citizen who having applied for a position as an interviewer, was affronted by the methods that were proposed to be used. I read from the second paragraph of the letter that the person received. It states:

We interview people in their homes outside of normal working hours, usually on Saturday morning. Every weekend 120of our 480 interviewers each asks 10 different people an interesting range of questions, like those in the attachment. Please refer to it as you read each paragraph of this letter.

I shall read the concluding paragraph. It states:

On receipt of your completed practice form, we will tell you how we interview one person per dwelling, at adjoining dwellings in specified streets.

Question 19j on page 7 of the instruction sheets reads:

And may I have your name please?

In brackets it adds:

Definitely not for a salesman to call, but only to show its a genuine interview.

The interviewer prints the name of the person, the postal address and the postcode. Question 19n reads:

Your Estimate of Economic Class:

Well-to-do (Def. above middle class)

Better-off (Down to those who must save for costly luxuries)

Artisans, clerks etc. (Few luxuries)

Lowest income (Poorest)

Item C on page 3 of the instructions states:

Q3 and 4: We have used Gallup Ballot Boxes since 1963. People like them. Few refuse or are undecided.

The procedure is natural, but you must fully understand it, so you can read the questions conversationally. If a writing base is needed, hand the box with your pen. Otherwise hold the box ready to receive the ballot after 3a or 3b. Always circle one of the 5 numbers in the 1st table below 3b.

The next part of the instruction is very interesting. This is the method that enables the firm to identify the political views of the interviewee. It enables them to correlate them with the other questions asked. It states:

Each ballot paper in the sheet has a different letter underlined in ‘ Country Party ‘ or ‘ Liberal Party ‘.

I do not know why they picked those 2 Parties. It continues:

When interviewing, you must keep the questionnaires in the order you receive them, and use the ballot paper with the same letter underlined as printed at the top right in Page 1 of each questionnaire. Detach the correct ballot paper before each interview, and keep it under the clip until Q3.

Then it says to see the explanation at the top of the sheet of ballots.

Mr MORRIS:

– I ask the honourable member to listen. Be patient. It further states:

When you arrive home, open the box carefully and tape or paste the ballot to the ‘ INTRODUCTION ‘ at the top left of Page 1 of the form with its letter printed at the top left of Page 1. Don’t use pins. Circle one of the 10 numbers in the second table below 3b.

Please keep the box on your clip board or in some other safe place.

Under the heading ‘ Reluctant ‘ it states:

If a person is reluctant on Q3 show (in a sheet of finding) how we publish opinions of ALP voters and L-CP voters separately. Also point out that acceptance of our findings on public questions depends on our ability to predict elections and referendums accurately. (We have published predictions for every Federal election and referendum since 1943, usually accurately.

Question 3a reads:

Now, we’d like your opinion on Australian politics. To make sure we get your views accurately, here ‘s a Gallup Poll ballot.

The interviewer hands the ballot paper to his interviewee saying:

If a Federal election were being held today, which party would receive your FIRST preference (if you had a vote)?

Then the interviewer hands over a pen and a box and says:

Would you please make a cross in the square beside the Party you’d give your first preference at a Federal election?

If the interviewee is undecided or refuses to answer, the inteviewer asks:

Well, would you please make a cross beside the Pany you’re leaning toward at present?

Then the instructions go on:

page 2185

ALWAYS RECORD:

PAPER MARKED AFTER 3a … 1

PAPER MARKED AFTER 3b … 2

It is interesting that on the page to which I am referring now, page 1 of the questionnaire, the code is Melbourne and the capital letter ‘C’ is printed at the top of the page. If one turns to the ballot paper, one finds that the letter ‘C of the word ‘Country ‘ in Country Party is marked. The person who received this set of instructions was revolted at the proposition that he should go along to somebody pretending to take a secret ballot when in fact the ballot papers would be taken home afterwards and would be lined up and affixed to the answers to other questions on which the person’s name and address were shown. Again, to show the deception in this, I point out that on page 10 of the instructions is it stated:

Finally:

  1. Express your thanks.
  2. Check that you have the cards, and
  3. Check right through the form, to be sure all ques- - tions were answered.

Under that it states:

I hereby certify that this is a true and honest interview with the person whose name and address is recorded on 19j, and that every question was asked exactly as printed.

This person wrote back to the firm expressing disapproval at what the firm of Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd was doing. He objected to what it was doing. The answer, over the signature of Roy Morgan, ACA, Chairman- I will read sections of it- says:

About once a year a prospective interviewer queries our system of using the ‘Gallup Ballot Box’.

When we experimented with the ‘Gallup Ballot Box’ in 1965, we found that the proportion who did not answer in surveys a few weeks before the election was much the same as previously. However, with the Ballot Box we have relatively few ‘No answers’ between elections.

In other countries, the boxes are marked ‘Secret Ballot’, but we don’t do that.

As pointed out in our publicity, we have been using the Ballot Boxes since 1963 without any difficulties, and some advantages. Obviously we must have people’s answers on the questionnaires so we can cross-tabulate with age, sex, religion, etc.

I will leave out the first part of the last sentence, but it concludes:

However, if you don’t wish to use the ‘Gallup Ballot Box’, we will have to appoint somebody else, with regret.

I believe it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the activities of the firm concerned. People are led to believe that .they are casting a secret vote or giving a secret expression of their opinion towards one or other of the political parties. I think it is gross misrepresentation on behalf of the firm. From reading the answer to the citizen who brought this to my attention it is obvious that the firm is quite arrogant to the public when the public responds and objects to what it is doing. If the poll is not a secret ballot the company ought to have the decency to say it is not a secret ballot, but if the results are presented to the people, to the nation, as being results of a secret ballot then it ought to be a secret ballot and there should be no correlation of the political views of the people interviewed.

It is obvious that with this type of poll one can produce any result one wants because the name and address of the person who is interviewed is known, the way the person expressed an opinion on the last occasion is known and if it is desired to get a change in the figures the composition of the list of interviewees is simply changed. I think it is completely deceptive, as I said earlier, and a flagrant breach of the privacy of the individual. I commend the citizen who brought this matter to my notice for his courage in writing to the firm and then for going further and passing the matter on to me, because it is a situation that ought to be brought to the notice of the people of this country. If other polls are being conducted in a similar fashion they also ought to be exposed.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– The matter I wish to raise in this debate concerns many Australian citizens and in particular those citizens who are the foundations for our future society. Like the cadet corps which this Government in a fit of pique saw fit to disband, the scouting and guiding movements provide an opportunity for the young Australian to learn to obey as well as give commands, to exercise self discipline, to set goals and then achieve them and to develop a sense of pride and belonging.’ This valuable movement enables our young people to work with and develop an affiliation with adults. The scouting and guiding movements offer many of the things the youth of today are looking for and there is a need to supply something now that the cadet system has been abolished by your Government, Mr Speaker. The problems of youth are widespread and well known and they all seem to be in the category of ‘lack of or ‘need for’. I refer to a few that come to mind: The lack of a value system encouraging a sense of belonging and pride in something; the need for a sense of purpose; a lack of group interaction and a lack of identification with the adult population.

Many of our young people pass through our rigid education system having attained little or no development of their creative faculties and so have a great inability to occupy their spare time. The prosperity of the country and the welfare of its people should be the concern of the Government. A Government should seek to motivate society both economically and socially not ruin it like the present Government is doing. It is true the Government offers grants and subsidies as motivation for various groups. To be effective these grants must reach as many people as possible and should be free to be used in the areas of greatest need. An area where Australian Government assistance is greatly needed is the scouting and guiding movements.

In 1973-74 the scouting movement was granted $50,000 by the Australian Labor Government. Unfortunately this amount was granted with strings attached and it was not exhausted by the end of the year. The same principle has been adopted in the 1974-75 allocation in which $50,300 has been granted with strings attached. This was vastly different from the allocation made by the McMahon-Anthony Government in 1972-73 when it gave this movement $40,000 with no strings whatsoever attached so that the scouting movement could use the money as it saw fit. The present Government’s grant has been allocated to the scouting movement for specific project use and not for use as the movement sees fit. As a result some small groups in my electorate of Darling Downs have been forced to disband because of a lack of funds. I submit this is a false allocation of funds. They are told: ‘Here is your share for you to use as we see fit, not as you, the people who control the guiding and scouting movements believe it should be spent in the best possible way for the greatest and maximum benefit’. The Government, through its misappropriation of funds and desire to manipulate further the people of Australia, has caused much waste and many areas of unneeded hardship.

The scouting and guiding movements are of great value to our young people. They are open to everyone irrespective of their race, creed, colour or class. The movements encourage cooperation and breed cheerful determination without fierce competition. It is sad when inflation begins to eat into such activities as those offered by these movements. Many youngsters may now be eliminated from becoming part of these great movements because of the rising costs which the movements can no longer bear. The small subscription and weekly fee of each member pay for the equipment and badges needed in the club training programs. There is a great contribution in work and money by voluntary labour which number thousands. I pay tribute to those many excellent people who take time off from their many and varied duties in life to mould and chisel into shape the character of our young boys and young women. It is tragic to see that their efforts are being stilted because of the lack of cooperation by the Australian Government. In the scouting movement alone in 1974 the volunteer labour was 50 305 of which 20 099 were in uniform and the remainder; behind the scenes involved in administration and fund raising. As well as this source of finance there is the Scouts and Guides ‘job week’ during which the young people themselves go out into the community and perform various tasks for people for which they receive payment. This money goes towards the running of the movement. The Scout Shop is another source of revenue.

I know that the people who are involved in the scouting and guiding movements are thankful to the Government for its contributions, but I ask: Why does the Government offer assistance with such restrictions and limitations? Surely an organisation with 50 000 voluntary workers administering over 121 000 boys is capable of knowing what areas of its organisation need financial assistance most. Many groups of scouts and guides are forced to operate and work in antiquated buildings in need of repair. Many operate with the minimum of equipment. In my electorate some companies have been forced to disband due to a lack of facilities yet there are plenty of young people waiting to become involved.

This is an area in which much could be done by a sympathetic government to help the youth of our society. It is true that the present Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) has done a great deal with the limited resources that have been made available to him to help in the development of tourist, recreation and sporting facilities, but is seems to me to be a most reprehensible action when the government of the day does not see fit to allocate a sufficient sum of our national resources to the youth of our society to educate them in how best to use leisure. The problem of how best to use leisure is, I believe, one of the great problems that will face the future of our society, and any movement which takes the boys and girls of Australia off the streets and develops in them a sense of pride and a sense of belonging to a particular sporting club or group deserves the encouragement of every member of every Parliament in Australia.

We particularly regret that the Australian Government has seen fit to disband the cadet corps system- a system which has been the envy of many countries and a system which has played a most vital part in the development of the character and basic motivation of many of those who have had the honour of being enrolled in various cadet corps associated with their schools.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2188

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Joint Venture to Manufacture 4-cylinder Engines in South Australia (Question No. 2473)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has agreement been reached, following negotiations involving Australian and Japanese interests, in the setting up of a joint plant to make 4-cylinder cars in Australia.
  2. Will the new operation be wholly or partly based in South Australia.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Toyota and Nissan Motor Companies of Japan have lodged with the Australian Government letters of intent to enter the 83 per cent local content plan for passenger vehicle manufacturers on the basis of participation in a joint operation with Chrysler Australia Ltd to manufacture 4- cylinder engines in Adelaide.

The Government has accepted the letters of intent and is seeking an Australian equity of 25 per cent in the venture, to be effected through the Australian Industry Development Corporation.

Negotiations on the details of the venture are continuing between the prospective participants.

  1. The intention is that 4-cylinder engines will be manufactured in a joint plant in Adelaide, based on the existing Chrysler foundry, and sold to the participating motor vehicle companies. The companies will purchase other automotive components from vendors in various States, including South Australia. It is likely that each company will continue to assemble finished vehicles at the present locations of assembly operations, that is, Adelaide in the case of Chrysler and Melbourne in the cases of Toyota and Nissan.

Special Assistance to Non-Metropolitan Areas Scheme (Question No. 2664)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1981 that was placed on the Notice Paper on 18 February 1975 and was unanswered by 23 May 1975.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to my reply to Question No. 1981 which appeared in Hansard (page 1581) on 1 October 1975.

Departmental Grants (Question No. 2701)

Mr Lamb:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 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 Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. – (a), (c) and (d) Financial assistance in the form of Direct Grants is available to incorporated Aboriginal groups and organisations in a variety of fields such as housing, health, education, employment, welfare, economic enterprises, town management, recreation and agricultural activities and legal aid. These Grants are not repayable. There are no matching grants as such and no distinction is made between Grants and Subsidies. Grants are not normally available to individuals.

    1. Loans are available from the Aboriginal Loans Commission to:
    1. Individuals and incorporated groups for approved business enterprises;
    2. Individuals as well as groups for home purchases on concessional terms.
  2. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has published a booklet entitled ‘Guide to Aboriginal Assistance’ which has been widely distributed. In addition, the Regional and Area Offices of the Department throughout Australia are in close touch with Aboriginal groups and communities for the purpose of explaining available programs of assistance.
  3. See (2) above.

Canberra: Housing (Question No. 2963)

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

How many Government houses will be constructed in the A.C.T. by the National Capital Development Commission during 1975-76?

How do these figures compare with the previous 6 years?

How many people will these additional houses accommodate?

What is the anticipated population growth in the A.C.T. for 1975-76?

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. The National Capital Development Commission will construct an estimated 1300 residential dwelling units in the A.C.T. during 1975-76.
  2. Comparative figures derived from Commission Annual Reports for the previous 6 years, are as follows:
  1. The 1975-76 completions are expected to house approximately 4300 residents.
  2. The anticipated population growth in the A.C.T. for 1 975-76 is approximately 6 per cent or 1 2 000 persons.

Aborigines: Land claims (Question No. 2965)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Now that the Government has resolved the claims of the Gurindji over land adjacent to Wattie Creek, when will the Government similarly resolve the claims of the Larrakeah Tribe over a considerable portion of Darwin.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the Northern Territory has, as a result of extensive hearings earlier this year, recommended that a Special Purpose Lease covering approximately 847 acres, which includes that area of land claimed by the Aboriginals associated with Kulaluk, be granted to trustees nominated by the Northern Aboriginal Land Council. I have endorsed the Interim Land Commissioner’s recommendations, and to enable the appropriate lease to be granted, arrangements are being made to acquire those existing interests which lie within the area of the proposed lease.

Housing (Question No. 3024)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. How many dwellings were built during 1974-75, and what was ( a ) the expenditure and ( b ) the advance.
  2. How many dwellings are estimated will be built during 1975-76 with the advance of $20.9m.
  3. What rate of inflation is assumed in providing an answer.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. During 1974-75, the National Capital Development Commission completed 1400 government dwelling units in Canberra at a cost of $23. 1 m.
  2. The estimated number of dwelling units to be built during 1975-76 by the Commission is 1300. Expenditure is estimated at $20.9m.
  3. The expenditure estimates are based on current costs but most contracts are subject to the provisions of Rise and Fall clauses in construction projects.

Australian Capital Territory Border Extension (Question No. 3026)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. With reference to the 4-page advertisement in the Canberra Times of Saturday 23 August 1975 relating to the extension of the A.C.T. border, how much of the total cost of the advertisement was borne by his department.
  2. What was the total cost of the 4-page advertisement.
  3. 3 ) Did any other departments, authorities or bodies share the cost of the 4-page advertisement.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. 53,203.20
  3. The advertisement was inserted solely by the National Capital Development Commission.

Canberra: Transport System (Question No. 3046)

Mr Snedden:

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

Further to the answer to question No. 2360 in which he indicated that he supports the transport policies being developed jointly by the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission aimed at providing an efficient public transport system for Canberra, what are these policies that he supports.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

The transport policies developed jointly by the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission are:

To develop transport facilities which best serve the complex pattern of activities necessary to the well-being of the community.

To encourage the development and use of a high quality public transport system.

3 ) To provide for freight and essential private car movements at minimum cost to the community, and with minimum impact on the social and physical environment.

To promote public safety and amenity, and the conservation of resources.

To ensure public understanding of and support, for the transport policies being developed.

These policies will involve:

The design of the road system to cater only for off-peak needs.

The progressive improvement of public transport as the city develops to provide both the necessary extra capacity for commuters and a higher level of service to meet social needs.

The associated control of traffic and car parking to minimise congestion and environmental problems, especially at peak periods.

Reply to Letter (Question No. 3052)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Would he please answer my letter dated 1 May 1975.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The honourable member’s letter was answered on 1 5 October 1975.

Future Objectives for Textile Industry (Question No. 3096)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

Does he intend to take action on the stated view of the reconstituted Textiles and Apparel Industry Advisory Panel that the Government should make a policy statement indicating future objectives, so that forward planning can proceed on a definite basis.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

In a news release of 31 July 1975 I stated that the Textiles and Apparel Industry Advisory Panel considered that the Government should make a policy statement indicating future objectives for the industry. The Panel has met a number of times to discuss this question and has submitted to me suggested policy guidelines for. the industry. Consideration is being given to these suggestions.

Department of Science and Consumer Affairs: Safety Aspects (Question No. 3119)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question on notice No. 3110. (Hansard, 1 October 1975, page 1598).

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Safety Aspects (Question No. 3126)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question number 3110, Hansard, October, 1975 at page 1598.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3169)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he say at a press conference on 5 July 1 975 at Kir.ribilli House that the great difference between Mr Connor and Dr Cairns is that Mr Connor was authorised to pursue inquiries and took advice on any responses he had and was, in general, consulting with his colleagues, while Dr Cairns was not authorised, and did not consult.
  2. If so, what is the reason for the difference between this statement and his answer to my question No. 44, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975, in which he said that Dr Cairns had a general responsibility in the loan raising field, and that negotiations or discussions about possibilities were not precluded without Executive Council authority.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I made a most detailed statement on these matters in the Parliament on 9 July 1975 (Hansard, pages 3556-360 1 ). I have nothing further to add.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3172)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the sum of $4,000 million to be borrowed was going to be used for the list of projects indicated by Senator Wriedt in the paper tabled in the Senate on 19 August 1975.
  2. Is it also a fact that these projects would have taken the whole $4,000m.
  3. As the money was to be obtained for temporary purposes, which of the listed projects are classified as temporary.
  4. If none of the projects is classified as temporary, was the Executive Council Minute a deception of the GovernorGeneral.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) I refer the honourable member to the answers I gave to questions 8-12 and 21-22 tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975 (Senate Hansard, pages 2 1 1-2 12). The fact that the purposes of the loan were temporary does not imply that the projects under consideration were to be temporary.
  2. There was no deception.

Photographs of Prime Minister (Question No. 2928)

Mr Kelly:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What was the cost of placing photographs of the Prime Minister in Australian Government offices and buildings during 1974-75.

Mr Daly:
Minister for Administrative Services · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Contrary to the various reports appearing in the Press, photographs of the Prime Minister were placed in Australian Parliamentary offices at my direction and without reference to the Prime Minister. The cost involved was $347.

Girl Guides Association of Australia: Research (Question No. 3103)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the nature of the research conducted by the Girl Guides ‘ Association of Australia into the effectiveness of existing youth programs, which was undertaken with a grant from the Australian Government.
  2. ) Has the research been completed.
  3. If so, was a report prepared, and are copies available.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. As part of its broad National Development Scheme, the Girl Guides’ Association undertook research into the needs of specific groups of young people in urban and rural areas. The research projects were to examine the extent of the need for after school and holiday recreation and care for underprivileged children, the problems of integrating Aboriginal children into the total community, possibilities of interaction between active and handicapped children and the extent to which existing programs in these areas are effective.
  2. The research projects are still continuing.
  3. The Association has submitted progress reports on these activities. Copies of these reports are available from my Department.

Joint Board of Christian Education: Study (Question No. 3105)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

What was the result of the work undertaken by the Joint Board of Christian Education to investigate the role played by churches in youth work with the aid of a grant from the Australian Government.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

The Joint Board of Christian Education undertook a study of the way in which a variety of churches in six widely scattered communities across Australia provided services to youth. Analysis of the data by computer has been completed and the final report is being prepared.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3171)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Referring to his answer to my question No. 6, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975, did the Government receive warnings about raising loans in the manner proposed from the Bank of England, the French Embassy in Canberra and Treasury officials in London.
  2. If so, were these warnings in similar vein to those in the Treasury Minutes tabled by him in the House on 9 July 1975.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) In my statement to the Parliament on 9 July 1975 I made it clear that the Department of the Treasury had reservations about the Government’s intention to authorise the Minister for Minerals and Energy to investigate loan raisings overseas (Hansard, page 3597). In my answer to question No. 6, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975 (Senate Hansard, page 211) I acknowledged that the Government had the benefit of advice from various sources. It would not be proper for me to disclose confidential advice.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3173)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In his answer to my question No. 23, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975, when he said that raising the loans overseas would reduce the need for private sector funds, did he mean in short terms that he would be replacing private ownership with Government ownership.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

As I indicated in the House of Representatives on 9 July 1975, our objectives are to promote Australian control of Australian resources which in the final analysis is nothing short of Australian control over Australia’s destiny (Hansard, page 3601).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3174)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he say what he meant in his answer to my question No. 27, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975, when he said that the authorisation was in specific terms.
  2. Did the authorisation give the former Minister for Minerals and Energy complete discretion in relation to the terms and conditions of the loan.
  3. If so, how was the authorisation therefore specific.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (3) The legal authority granted by the OrdersinCouncil of 14 December 1974 and 28 January 1975 (the full texts of which were made available to the Senate (Senate Hansard, 9 July 1975, pages 2724-25)) is quite specific.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3176)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In regard to his answer to my question No. 35, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975, in which he said that the Executive Council authorities were revoked when they conflicted with other loans being negotiated, what advice was received from the United States that the $100m loan would not be available while the authority was outstanding.
  2. If advice was received that the loan would not be available, what were the grounds on which it was to be withheld.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Our knowledge of United States law and practice indicated that the existence of the authority to borrow would have significantly complicated the proposed United States bond issue.
  2. At no time was such advice received.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3170)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Referring to his answer to my question No. 3, tabled in the Senate on 26 August 1975, was he aware of no more details than his statement that he was aware for some time that Mr Connor was interested in having the Government borrow overseas.
  2. Did he understand the exceptional nature of the loan.
  3. Was he aware that the first block of $500m was to be ready for transfer 6 days before the Executive Council Minute authorising the loan.
  4. If so, when did he first become aware of this.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I was aware for some rime before the Executive Council Meeting on 13 December 1975 of Mr Connor’s interest in having the Government borrow overseas and of the nature of the proposal. It was at all times intended that Executive Council authority would be obtained before any borrowing was made.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3256)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In answer to my question No. 7, tabled on 26 August 1973 in the Senate, why did he say that there was no requirement for consultation with State Premiers for borrowing for temporary purposes, and in the same answer say that there would be consultation with the State Premiers if and when the loan was made.
  2. Why would he consult the State Premiers if, as set out in the Executive Council Minute, the loan was for temporary purposes and there was thus no requirement for consultation.
  3. Do the contradictory statements made in this answer mean that the loan was never intended to be for temporary purposes.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I said in my answer to question No. 7 tabled on 26 August in the Senate that there was no requirement for consultation with State Premiers with respect to borrowings for temporary purposes. This arises from the terms of the Financial Agreement. Nevertheless, I considered it appropriate in the circumstances that, if and when a loan was finally negotiated, we should seek the approval of the Loan Council which of course involved State Premiers’ (Hansard, pages 3598-9.)
  2. The answer contained no contradictory statements.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3270)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What precisely were the October initiatives through Mr Michael Murphy referred to on page 3566 of Hansard of 9 July 1975.
  2. ) What is the present position concerning them.
  3. What connection is there with Mr Khemlani or Mr Harris.
  4. Is the relationship continuing.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There were discussions between Dr Cairns and a Mr Michael Murphy last year, but no acceptable proposals emerged.
  2. Mr Murphy was associated with the Transia Corporation Limited for a time. The Treasurer wrote to Transia Corporation Limited on 26 June 1975 drawing attention to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 June 1975 that henceforth no person had authority to do anything in relation to borrowings by the Australian Government unless done with his authority and noting that he had not given any authority to the company, to any of its Directors and officers or to anyone associated with the company, to do anything in relation to borrowings by the Australian Government.
  3. and (4) I am not aware of a connection.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3272)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will he please table the letter to Dr Cairns of 23 April 1975 referred to on page 3566 of Hansard of 9 July 1975; if not, why not.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

In my statement in the House on 9 July 1 975 1 said that the papers relating to Transia Corporation Limited could be tabled but that I was reluctant to do so because of the confidential commercial information which they contained (Hansard, page 3600). I asked the Leader of the National Country Party did he want Sir William Gunn’s papers to be tabled and did he make any charge against Sir William Gunn. He did not respond to the questions and has made no charges against Sir William Gunn.’

For- these reasons I am still of the view that the relevant papers should not be tabled.

Prime Minister’s Department: Publications (Question No. 3304)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751015_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant