House of Representatives
4 November 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 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2715

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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, 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 Clayton, Mr Killen, 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 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 the 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 that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr FitzPatrick and Mr McKenzie.

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:

  1. It has been suggested recently that the regular wrangling between the Australian Government and thevarious 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 Dr Klugman.

Petition received.

Taxation

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 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 that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr FitzPatrick, Dr Klugman and Mr McKenzie.

Petitions received.

Home Ownership

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 implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs: that many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership: that the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services: that the proposals are concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.

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

Petitions received.

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 Donald Cameron.

Petition received.

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:

That the decision to abolish the Naval Reserve Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps and the Air Training Corps is ill conceived. The Cadet Corps has much to commend it including stimulating an interest in Service life and providing an element of discipline so often lacking in the youth of today.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take action to impress upon the Government the need to retain the Australian Cadet Corps.

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

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 respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr FitzPatrick and Mr Ian Robinson.

Petitions 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 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 Kerin and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

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 (S3 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 1 974-75 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 1975-76, payment to (he States for the running costs ofpublic 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.
  5. 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. by Dr Klugman and Mr McKenzie.

Petitions received.

Thomas Holt Memorial Village Nursing Home

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the Thomas Holt Memorial Village and certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That a 30 bed nursing home is urgently needed at the Thomas Holt Memorial Village,
  2. ) That the original ideal for the residents to have a home for life, going from self-care to partial-care, and then to a nursing home at the village is wholly supported by residents of this village,
  3. That the absence of this greatly needed nursing home is causing the administrative staff great difficulty in securing beds at existing nursing homes in the district when emergencies arise,
  4. That permission has been refused to build and operate a nursing home at Sutherland, and the majority of residents are apprehensive as to their future without the provision of adequate nursing facilities and will consequently be forced to depart from the ideal situation at this village.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to re-examine its decision to reject the proposal to build a nursing home at the Thomas Holt Memorial Village, with a view to providing its residents with this much needed facility.

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

Petition received.

Northern Territory

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Legislative Assembly respectfully showeth: that the avowed intention of the Australian Parliament to further the interests of democracy and parliamentary government in the Territory is being frustrated by the executive and administrative arms of government.

In particular the will of the Australian Parliament is being hindered by the extended delay in considering the reports from the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory.

It is 12 months since the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory was elected. Without provision for executive authority this was a very limited constitutional advance.

It is over 2 years since the Joint Committee was appointed. 1 1 months have passed since the main report was tabled. Nearly 5 months have elapsed since the supplementary report was presented.

Despite the firm recommendations of the Joint Committee relating to the transfer of executive powers and administrative functions to a Territory Executive, the Government has transfered neither powers nor functions. It has not provided a statement of attitude to the reports, nor the opportunity for debating them.

The major parties in government and opposition have espoused the cause of constitutional development for the Northern Territory in recent years. The evidence for this is in the ‘Outline of proposals for the transfer of a range of functions to the N.T. Legislative and Executive’, August 1972, and the ‘Terms’ of reference of the Joint Committee on the N.T. ‘ September 1 973, as well as in party platforms.

The first report of the Joint Committee tabled on 26 November 1974, included 25 specific recommendations and these were reaffirmed by the second report tabled on 28 May 1975.

Apart from confirmation of the arrangements for election of and composition of the Assembly the recommendations dealt with:

Legislative Responsibility (4)

Executive Responsibility ( 5 )

Financial arrangements ( 2 )

Public Service (7)

Relationship between the National and Territory

Executives (2)

Role of the Administrator (1).

No action has been taken in respect of any of these 21 recommendations, but certain initiatives of the Australian Government continue to cut across the spirit and terms of the report, particularly in the fields of legislation.

page 2718

LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Recommendation 5- that the Legislative Assembly continue to have power to legislate in respect to all ‘state-type’ matters but an over-riding power be vested in the GovernorGeneral to make regulations. This over-riding power to be used only when the Assembly has failed to pass, after consultation, in a form acceptable to the Australian Government, Australian Government sponsored legislation in respect to functions being the executive responsibility of the Australian Government.

Recommendation 6- that all ‘state-type’ matters, the executive responsibility of the Australian Government, be introduced into the Legislative Assembly.

The Australian Government has continued to enact in respect of many ‘state-type’ matters, without any reference or consultation with the Assembly- e.g. National Parks and Wildlife, Darwin Reconstruction, Land Price Stabilization, Ombudsman, Aboriginal Land, Australian Police.

Recommendation 8- that the present arrangements for the withholding of assent by the Australian Government in respect to those ‘state-type’ functions retained by the Australian Government be exercised only after the fullest consultation with the Territory Executive.

The Government has withheld assent to 8 Ordinances in the past two years, including the Cyclone Disaster Emergency Ordinance 1975, where the withholding of assent to part of a section changed the whole sense and intention of the legislation- again without reference or consultation.

In the case of the N.T. police force, the Government, acting on an Administrative Arrangements Order, has continued to ignore the laws of the Territory.

page 2718

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Recommendation 17-that a Northern Territory Administration be created, comprising the existing Nothern Territory

Public Service and those officers of the Australian Public Service engaged in the functions to be transferred to the control of the Territory Executive.

Recommendation 23- that the Australian Government co-operate fully with the Territory Executive in the provision of required services on an agency basis.

Attempts by the Legislative Assembly to function as a Westminster-style parliamentary institution have been frustrated by the failure of the Government to provide staff to enable executive members to function in an executive capacity.

The decision of the Government to remove senior officers of the Department of Northern Australia from Darwin to Canberra has reversed the trend towards local responsibility in the administration of the Territory and restored the old concept of the Territory as a colonial outpost of Canberra.

As the duly elected representatives of the people of the Northern Territory we humbly pray that the Parliament will take steps to redress our grievances and to set right the wrongs imposed on us by the Australian Government.

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Telephone Charges

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 decisions of the Australian Government-

  1. To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your Petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the above mentioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine:

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and
  2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

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

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. 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 1 975.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water Rates

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

That the undersigned persons believe that-

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

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

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-

  1. 1 ) 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;
  2. increase this grant annually in line with the inflation rate.

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

Petition received.

page 2719

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2719

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: Has he informed the Governor-General precisely when the Government’s money supply will be exhausted? In the interests of open government will he make this information available to the Parliament?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-Last week I had, as did the Leader of the Opposition too, a conversation with the Governor-General, at his request, when we discussed some of the current events. For the same reasons that the Leader of the Opposition will not be divulging the details of what I would have thought would be generally regarded as a personal and confidential discussion with the vice-regal representative in this country, I too will not be divulging the details of my discussion.

page 2719

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware of the grave concern throughout Australia that because of the actions of the Liberal and National Country Parties in refusing to pass the Budget meat exports from this country could cease because money from the Appropriation Bills will not be available to pay the salaries of meat inspection services which are essential for the export of all meat from Australia. I ask the Minister: As meat exports are vital to the economy of towns and industries as well as for employment purposes throughout Australia, is there any way in which the Government can guarantee the salaries of meat inspectors and veterinary services?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-As honourable members know, there is grave concern about this issue because although a lot of assistance to rural industries is guaranteed under special appropriations the salaries of meat inspectors and veterinary services are provided for under the Appropriation Bills. Honourable members will know also that no meat can be exported from Australia except with the approval of the meat inspection services which of course are provided by the meat inspectors and the veterinary officers of the Federal Department of Agriculture. Under the present appropriation it is certain that the money would have run out some time this month. However, a close examination of the relevant Acts has revealed that it is possible to pay meat inspectors and veterinary officers within the operations of the Act which deals with the collection of levies with respect to meat inspection in Australia. Although the normal practice is to pay the amount of money collected for meat inspection into the trust account and then into Consolidated Revenue and then to appropriate it in the normal way for the payment of salaries, it is possible to short-cut that process by direct payment from the balance of the trust account. The Minister for Agriculture, under section 10 of the relevant Act, has the power to do this. I have consulted our legal authorities. They have informed me that this action is perfectly legal. I have consulted the Prime Minister who has asked me to do everything possible legally to pay meat inspectors to guarantee the meat exports from Australia.

page 2720

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

-Does the Treasurer know in which areas of Government activity the Government’s money supply will be first exhausted? Will he give this information to the House?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-This involves an extensive and complex exercise which has not been totally completed by the Treasury Department. As to when, or even if it is tabled in this Parliament, that is a matter for decision by the Government.

page 2720

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. What impact will the delay in passing the Budget have on the administration of the Defence Service Homes Act? Will it mean any further extension in the waiting list for new applicants? What- can be done to prevent people losing homes and in some cases deposits?

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

– I previously answered a question from the honourable member for Wide Bay in this House by saying that all applicants up to 3 1 July would have had their commitments met immediately. An amount of $70m was available under the provisions of the Supply Act and that money will be exhausted in the third week of

November. That means that we will now not be able to meet those commitments to applicants who applied up to 3 1 July this year as quickly as we would like. From 1 December, because of the provisions of the Housing Corporation Act there will be at least an income of approximately $8m a month. Of that amount, $4.5m will be capital repayment and we will be able to use that money for those people who have entered into commitments. But our commitments are running at $10m a month and many people who made applications prior to 31 July we will now not be able to pay. I want to make it quite clear with regard to the stopping of Supply that those exservicemen opposite who wear their badge with pride must realise that they are the ones who are inflicting this hardship on ex-servicemen and their dependants.

page 2720

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FUNDS

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– How does the Treasurer reconcile statements such as that made by his colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and other fear statements propagated by his other colleagues on the front bench that funds will run out with the public statement that he made that the Government intends to use alternative sources of funds?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-It is quite obvious that the funds appropriated under Supply will run out. If no alternative arrangements were made quite a cataclysmic situation would develop in this country. To the extent that alternative arrangements can be made, they would be made lawfully and constitutionally under existing parliamentary approval and the position could at least be moderated; but it would be wrong to expect that alternative arrangements can be made in a way which is as efficient and comfortable in its functioning as the present system or to cover all contingencies.

page 2720

QUESTION

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND FEES

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. What has the value of student assistance and fees become in the current Budget?

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

– Living allowances for university students are now about $57m. The payment for fees would be about $60m. Living allowances for advanced education would be about $36m and fees would be $13m. Living allowances for technical education would be $19m and fees would be $21m. That means that living allowances amount to about $ 1 12m and fees to $94m, making a total of $206m. The last arrangements for payment of the living allowances had to be made at the end of last week. They involved the setting up of computers to pay the students. In November it is normal to make a double payment to cover November and December. It has not been possible to make the double payment, so there will be only a single payment. Of course the problem concerns student addresses during the holiday period. Students have been notified by me that if the money becomes available in December the cheques will have to be sent to their term addresses as the task of location and the setting up of computers to trace them would be impossible.

page 2721

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FUNDS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Treasurer: What powers does the Government propose to use to bypass the Parliament in obtaining an alternative supply of funds? What legal basis is there for these powers? What opinions have been obtained concerning their legality?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-No steps would be taken which would bypass the Parliament. Anything that was done would be done legally, would be done within the Constitution and would be done with the approval of a decision of Parliament. I expect that any appreciation that has to be expressed would be expressed very largely to previous Liberal-Country Party governments for the actions they took to establish those authorities. Beyond that it is not my intention to say any more at this stage.

page 2721

QUESTION

COSTS OF ELECTIONS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Could the Minister for Administrative Services inform the House of the cost of conducting a general election in Australia? Could he also inform the House whether the running of all the additional candidates for the Senate in New South Wales in 1974 added to the tremendous costs that must be met by the taxpayers?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Administrative Services · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not in a position to give the honourable member accurate figures but I believe a Senate election would cost approximately $3m to $3.5m. The more Senate candidates there are, the greater is the cost involved.

The 73 candidates in New South Wales at the last election caused additional overtime and involved counting procedures were made necessary, and great additional costs were incurred. It is anticipated, because of the failure of those opposite to support legislation dealing with optional preferential voting, that we could have up to 240 candidates in New South Wales. This means not only that there will be a lengthy period of counting but there will also be tremendous expense. And of course the number of informal votes cast will be increased. This state of affairs will add to the great cost involved. It is the responsibility of those opposite. The need for electoral reform is shown particularly by the added costs and the need to have reasonable voting procedures. I cannot give the honourable member any more information than that but I will see that he is provided with detailed information regarding the costs of the last six or seven elections in order that he will see the tremendous cost involved particularly because of increased numbers of candidates.

page 2721

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Mr LYNCH:

– I ask the Treasurer: Does the Government intend to use section 70b of the Audit Act to facilitate a continuation of current and capital expenditure subject to deferment? If so, will he tell the House in what way the Act is to be used? Will he also tell the House what authority is available to the Government to meet any guarantees actually drawn upon in the absence of a specific parliamentary appropriation?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– More than one option is available to the Government. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

page 2721

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Agriculture by drawing attention to reports of a disastrous shortfall in this season’s Russian wheat crop. I ask: What implications has this for Australia? What is the current position of sales by the Australian Wheat Board?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– It is a fact that there has been a drastic shortfall in the estimated availability of wheat in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This has tightened the world demand. Our production levels and our export capabilities are such that it is possible we will have only a very small stock carry over for export at the end of the season because we have very large orders in the pipeline. We have made major sales of wheat to Russia, to China and to Egypt, some of it through term agreements. All of our estimated production of wheat in the next harvest will be taken care of by the Australian Wheat Board in secure markets.

page 2721

QUESTION

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has claimed that I have been associated with Central Intelligence Agency money in Australia. Will he produce the proof of this claim? If his claim is based on letting my house in Canberra 9 years ago to an American, does the Prime Minister claim the man was a CIA officer? If so, will he prove that claim?

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

– The names, appointments and locations mentioned by the right honourable gentleman, according to reports that I read in the newspapers yesterday and today or reports given to newspapers according to the newspapers by members of his staff, are in accordance with the information given to me. The right honourable gentleman has confirmed everything that I believe. His tenant and his host was a member of the CIA when he was in Australia. Nobody would believe that the right honourable gentleman was not aware of that fact. The family friendship has been preserved since. I have nothing more to add at this stage. In the meantime, perhaps I can draw to the right honourable gentleman’s attention a couple of comments made editorially by the Australian Financial Review today. It stated: . . . this newspaper has for some months been examining the activities of the CIA in Australia and their relations with Mr Anthony in particular.

On the evidence uncovered elsewhere we believe that funds have flowed into Australia aimed at influencing Australia’s domestic political situation with a view to protecting America’s interests.

But the whole editorial is very informative and, as I say, I have nothing more to add at this stage. The right honourable gentleman was more forthcoming than I ever dreamt he would be. It is inconceivable that a person who was holding the postions he did at that time and who has had a lifetime in politics- grew up with politics- and has practised it now in this Parliament for some 20 years should have been so gullible.

page 2722

QUESTION

SECRET BALLOTS IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Is there any provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which requires trade unions to have secret ballots in respect of industrial disputes? Is there any limitation on the type of dispute which may be settled by recourse to a secret ballot?

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

-Section 45 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does have provision for secret ballots for the settlement of industrial disputes. The provision is limited to the settlement of industrial disputes as defined by that Act. But secret ballots in those situations may be ordered by a presidential member of the Arbitration Commission or by a Full Bench. Previous to 195 1, any member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, as it then was, had the power to order a secret ballot; but that was limited in 195 1 by a Liberal-Country Party government. The same provision was re-enacted in 1972, thereby limiting the right to order a secret ballot to a presidential member or a Full Bench. There was a ballot ordered in 1962-1 think it was during the storemen and packers’ strike- which was not proceeded with because the dispute was settled. I think the last one was in 1945- if I remember correctly it was during a tramways dispute- and it was resolved to continue the strike.

At this stage it may be pertinent to refer to another strike which threatens to have far graver consequences than any industrial dispute in living memory. That is the strike by the Senate, which refuses to carry out its functions and pass the Appropriation Bill or even deal with it. That strike will have far-reaching repercussions. It could throw finance into chaos and could have serious repercussions for the housing and construction industry.

Mr Peacock:

– Have a secret ballot on it.

Mr RIORDAN:

– What an excellent suggestion from the honourable member for Kooyong. He again is on an excursion into the industrial relations field. The last time he went there he said that unions were not made up of one big red blob. Of course, under the careful vigilance of the honourable member for Mackellar, we would not find too many Reds in the Liberal Party but we would not have to look too far to find the one big blob. The honourable member has come in again today to say: ‘Let us have a secret ballot’. My suggestion is that, if the Liberals are so keen in advocating their secret ballots to settle disputes, perhaps the new compromise, a further compromise, which seems to be in favour with the Opposition these days, might be for the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to use their influence to have this strike settled by a secret ballot and order, or agree to, the holding of a secret ballot of the senators on the Appropriation Bill.

page 2722

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed widely in a televised interview with Mr David Frost in August 1 972 that the Prime Minister was entitled to lie or withhold the whole truth from Parliament in matters affecting international confidence? Does the Prime Minister believe that the attempt to raise overseas funds constitutes a matter of international confidence?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The honourable gentleman knows quite well that I was referring to matters such as defence secrets or the revaluation of currency. I made it quite plain at the time that there are some matters which are secrets not just of a head of government but of other governments. The head of a government cannot divulge the secrets of another government. They are not his secrets. There are obviously some matters, such as defence secrets and currency secrets, which no leader of a government could divulge without the concurrence of the other persons whose secrets they are.

page 2723

APPROPRIATION BILLS: EFFECTS OF DEFERRAL

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-Can the Prime Minister inform the House what steps the Government has taken to reduce hardship for people who depend on the Appropriation Bills if those Bills should not be passed by the end of the period of the Supply Acts?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government is discussing with the banks the provision of credit for its employees and suppliers for the amounts the Government will owe them but will not be able to pay them if the Budget Bills are not passed this month. Honourable gentlemen will appreciate that it is not possible to pursue such discussions today with banks whose headquarters are in Melbourne. Honourable gentlemen opposite seem to have some apprehensions about the use of section 70b of the Audit Act. Section 70B of the Audit Act was last amended by the Menzies Government. It was twice amended by the Menzies Government. It is the law of the land. Presumably it accords with the Constitution. Nevertheless the Government is not using that section because it applies to the Reserve Bank, the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Development Bank. Clearly the Government expects that all banks will co-operate in relieving hardship to persons who would ordinarily be paid by the Australian Government but who could not be paid by the Australian Government because of the unprecedented and reprehensible actions of the Opposition which, in the Senate, has three times deferred debate on all of the Budget Bills. It it well known, of course, that if the Senate were allowed by the Leader of the Opposition to vote on the Budget Bills they would be passed.

Mr Morris:

– A secret ballot?

Mr WHITLAM:

-No, an open vote. The weekend before last Senator Bessell said on Four Corners that he would not vote against the Budget Bills. He said that there were several other senators in his Party who were of like mind. We are being treated to a charade in the Senate where a majority of senators would vote to pass the Budget Bills for very good reasons. Budget Bills have never been rejected. If one asserts that the Senate can reject a money Bill, one also has to accept that the deadlock between the Houses on a money Bill would be resolved in the same way as a deadlock between the Houses on any Bill; that is, 3 months after the money Bill was rejected by the Senate it would be reintroduced in the House of Representatives and if again rejected by the Senate there could be a double dissolution on that Bill.

At all events, it is surely about time the Leader of the Opposition allowed his followers in the Senate to vote on the Budget. If they reject the Budget other constitutional processes can flow. But by various devices- talking out time in his Party room, calling in State Premiers to stand over his members, using the Party machines which, in the Liberal Party are State apparatusesthe Leader of the Opposition has put off facing this issue. The Senate should be allowed to vote on the Budget. The Senate has not yet been allowed to vote on the Budget. A majority of senators would vote for the Budget.

page 2723

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BY-ELECTION

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister noticed reports that people in the Western Australian State seat of Greenough have returned a Liberal member to the State House? Has he noticed that the Australian Labor Party vote was down by 7 per cent and that even the right wing Workers Party polled approximately as many votes as his once great Party?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I noticed that the Liberal vote declined still further than the Labor vote. But what I was appalled to notice was that the Country Party and Workers Party votes rose. That is, the parties of extremes gained support at the expense of the 2 great parties of Australian politics, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. That is what concerns me.

page 2723

QUESTION

NORTH KOREAN DIPLOMATIC MISSION

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Overseas Trade. Has the withdrawal of the North Korean diplomatic mission anything to do with the failure of the North Korean Government to pay for goods imported from Australia? Has it owed money to some of our exporters for a long time ? Will the Minister take this opportunity to warn our exporters not to send goods to North Korea without previously having received payment from it?

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

-I think it is well established that North Korea does face serious balance of payments problems. There have been one or two instances of difficulties involving payment to Australian exporters. Those matters have been taken up within my Department in an endeavour to secure a satisfactory solution. Nevertheless the balance of payments situation is acute and, I believe, deteriorating in North Korea.

page 2724

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCERS STATISTICAL RETURNS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry who represents the Minister responsible for statistical returns in another place. I ask: Has the Australian Bureau of Statistics sent out forms to selected primary producers for completion? Do these forms contain much personal information when completed by the recipients? In view of the personal information revealed recently in Parliament concerning some users of superphosphate is it possible for the Minister to give an assurance that other primary producers will not be receiving the same treatment? If this assurance is not forthcoming it appears at the moment that some persons will be prepared to risk prosecution rather than complete the form. Will the Minister inform the House on this matter and clarify the situation?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-For some years now the Statistician has been getting information from primary producers. There is nothing new about that. This information was obtained when the Party which the honourable member supports was in office. The position is that from the point of view of the Statistician it is necessary to obtain the information in all fields so that it can be passed on to the Government. Everybody is obliged to complete statistical returns whether they are primary producers or otherwise, and there is a complete right to privacy. There has never been any disclosure of any information from a statistical return.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– That is not true.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is true. The Leader of the Opposition interjects apparently because of his own personal interest in the superphosphate subsidy. Let me make it clear. The disclosure of information about superphosphate subsidy payments in respect of any member of the Opposition came from the company concerned. The fertiliser company would give credit to the purchaser of the superphosphate to the extent of the subsidy and would itself collect the subsidy. It has nothing to do with the Statistician. Anybody would have a fair idea of how much superphosphate was wanted for 8000 acres. The point that I ought to make clear is this: As I understand it the information disclosed in the Senate was as a result of a customs or excise inquiry from the firms dealing in superphosphate as to those people who had received payments in excess of $5,000, and that information came from that source. It had nothing to do with the Statistician. There is a complete right to privacy in relation to statistical returns. Everybody is obliged to complete the returns. It is essential if we are going to have accurate statistical information in this country that those returns be completed and the requirements complied with. I give a complete assurance in respect of privacy. The honourable member was in error when he referred to the disclosure of information in respect of the superphosphate subsidy.

page 2724

QUESTION

SUPPLY

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question, addressed to the Treasurer, relates to the recent Budget which outlined expenditure of over $2 1,000m. How much of that outlay will be inoperative until the Opposition in the Senate is prepared to pass the Appropriation Bills? Is it time that among Budget expenditure which cannot yet be paid are all increases approved for civil and repatriation pensioners? Such increased expenditure in Tasmania amounts to $6m in one year alone.

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– The amount of money which will be delayed because of the obstructionist tactics of the Opposition in the Senate towards Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) is about $8,000m or $9,000m. To the extent that that money is not going out each month it represents a contraction equal to about one-eithth of the monthly formation of gross domestic product. There is no need for this situation to develop. There is no need for the Government to be seeking alternative legal ways of funding the operation of government. There is no need for the community to suffer the disadvantages, discomfort and, in some cases, the quite serious financial penalties which are going to arise, especially in the corporate sector, if the Opposition in the Senate is to be reponsible and is to adhere to constitutional convention. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that if the Opposition were to stand up and declare its real wish- that is, to vote against the Appropriation Bills in the Senate- it would not be able to carry its own senators and the Bills would be passed.

Some opposition members, especially Liberal senators of a responsible frame of mind, have made their attitude in that respect quite clear. I am replying to a question without notice and I am not sure whether the repatriation pensions are included in the Appropriation Bills. The Bills relate to a wide range of matters. They include many hundreds of items. I will check this matter for the honourable member.

page 2725

QUESTION

JACKSON COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the recently published Jackson committee report. Does not the Prime Minister agree that with the committee containing members with such diverse backgrounds as Mr Hawke and Professor Wheelwright on the one hand, and Messrs Jackson and Carnegie on the other, it “is a considerable achievement for the report to be signed at all? Does the Prime Minister remember Samuel Johnson being asked about women’s preaching and his answer: ‘Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well but you are surprised to see it done at all’? When can we expect that the committee member who did not sign the report- Mr Rattigan, the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission- will present his minority opinion?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– There should be no assumption that Mr Rattigan will present a minority opinion. In cases concerning individuals I have long stated that I believe questions should be placed on notice. I agree with the honourable gentleman’s tribute to the high level and diverse membership of the committee. While I would not say that its report is in Augustan prose, nevertheless it is very wide-ranging and valuable document and I take this opportunity in the Parliament to express the appreciation of the Government, and I believe of all honourable members, of those busy men who spent so much time investigating these matters and so much time in reaching the remarkable consensus they did.

I should take the opportunity to inform the House also that a committee of Ministers has been established to examine the several recommendations of the Jackson committee which will require immediate consideration. The committee consists of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, the Special Minister of State, the Treasurer and myself.

page 2725

QUESTION

SENATE ELECTIONS

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister seen reports of a proposal to end the Budget deadlock? If so, are those proposals acceptable to the Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Yes, I did see proposals described as having this character. I would like to warn honourable gentlemen that the proposals derive no greater sanctity from the fact that they were divulged to the Governor-General at the request of the author before they were made public. I have no doubt that His Excellency was amused. One of the proposals is, I gather, that I should seek an audience of His Excellency and advise him that in 6 months I intend to advise him to issue writs for an election of the House of Representatives. This is a most diverting proposal. When I advise the Governor-General to issue writs for an election for the House of Representatives I shall do it at a time of my own choosing.

It is in this House that such decisions are made, and the decisions as to when there will be elections for it are made by persons responsible to this House. Those elections can be held up to the third anniversary of its first meeting after an election. I gather that there is some proposition that the Leader of the Opposition, who on the most favourable issues at most can depend on the votes of half the senators, should himself give advice to the Governor-General as to when there should be elections for the House of Representatives a very novel proposition.

Mr Cohen:

– Impertinent.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is impertinent but one becomes tolerant when so many conventions are overlooked or ignored or broken. The whole of this question arises in the context of the unprecedented and reprehensible action of the Senate in deferring a vote on the Budget. When the people voted in May of last year they expected that the incoming government would present a Budget not only in the latter part of 1 974 but also in the latter part of 1975 and also in the latter part of 1976. The Government which came in with the support of the people will do just that.

When there will be an election for the Senate depends on various factors. I notice that honourable gentlemen opposite have become quite distraught at the prospect that there might be an election for the Senate at the usual time in November or December before the new senators take their places in July. I notice one of my distinguished predecessors said that it would be in effect unconscionable to have an election at that time. He was the right honourable gentleman who advised successive governors-general about the holding of Senate elections more often than any person who has held this position. On one occasion he advised the holding of a Senate election in April; on the other occasions in December, or more often in November and on one occasion in September previously.

So it is quite clear that it would be in accordance with precedent for me to advise the Governor-General to request State governors to issue writs for a Senate election in this year. I am not persuaded that I should do so. My own preference has always been that the election for senators should take place as close to the time when they take their places as possible. That was my view last year. If there had not been a double dissolution there would have been an election for the Senate in May last year. That was the advice I had given to the Governor-General and the Governor-General had communicated with all the States governors accordingly before the circumstances arose upon which I advised the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses.

My ordinary view is that elections should take place closer to the expiry time of the shorter term senators. Nevertheless, I am influenced by the advice of the editorials in the Age and the Australian Financial Review to consider an earlier Senate election- on a date such as Sir Robert Menzies and most of my predecessors would have advised. But I want to assure honourable gentlemen and right honourable gentlemen that I am still thinking over the matter. I am not overeuphoric because of the overwhelming results of the opinion polls. I am not unduly swayed by the editorials in the Age and the Australian Financial Review. I still want to look at the matter. I am not distraught as those opposite are by the High Court having held what would obviously have been the case in the minds of most honourable gentlemen, that senators may be elected from the Territories and may vote.

Actually I was in the Northern Territory over the weekend and I was impressed by the sense of outrage among people there at the National Country Party’s antics on this question of senators being elected for the Territories because they had not forgotten that Country Party and Liberal Party senators had on 4 occasions in 1973 and 1974 voted against citizens in the Northern Territory being allowed to choose senators- 4 occasions. Their sense of outrage was exacerbated by the fact that a Country Party Premier, the Premier of Queensland, who I read is campaigning in the Northern Territory at the moment- one would almost think an election was coming up for the Territory- challenged in the High Court the right of citizens of the Northern Territory to have senators of their choice sitting in the Senate and voting for them. In the Northern Territory people are outraged at the attitude of the Country Party towards the franchise for citizens of the Northern Territory.

There is another aspect about a Senate election if it were held straight away. Any Premier may advise his Governor, so we now know, to issue writs for an election of senators in his State. As soon as any Governor were to issue writs for the election of senators to take office for his State as from 1 July next, automatically, under the legislation which the High Court has declared valid, there would be an election for the senators from the Territories to take office immediately. But the objection opposite also seems to be that in New South Wales and Queensland there may be opportunity for the people to elect somebody to succeed 2 former Labor senators immediately. Honourable gentlemen opposite are outraged at the idea that the people should choose senators. They would much rather have Premiers do this.

There is another feature which must give me concern. It is clear from the public opinion polls that the Australian Labor Party would get the first, third and fifth positions in New South Wales if there was an election. There are very many weighty matters for my consideration and I must ask honourable gentlemen to bear with me while I weigh them and tender my advice to His Excellency on when he should request the Governors to issue writs for an election for the Senate.

page 2726

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953-1973 I present the annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2726

UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 15 of the Universities Commission Act 1959-1974 I present the sixth report of the Universities Commission dated May 1975. A pre-print copy of this report was distributed to all honourable members during the winter recess of Parliament.

page 2726

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ASSISTANCE) BILL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present copies of tables relating to the second reading speech on the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1975 1 made in this House on 22 October 1 975. On that occasion leave was granted for these tables to be incorporated in Hansard. However it has subsequently been established that this has not been possible due to the volume of material. Due to the limited number available reference copies of these tables have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. In addition, a limited number can be obtained on request by honourable members from the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives.

page 2727

HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission for 1974-75.

page 2727

LAW REFORM COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Mr ENDERBY (CanberraAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Law Reform Commission on Criminal Investigation together with a statement by me relating to that report.

page 2727

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Mr KEATING:
Minister for Northern Australia · Blaxland · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for September 1975. Due to the limited number of copies available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2727

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

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

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– I claim to have been grievously misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The Prime Minister was reported in the newspapers on Sunday and Monday as having made the following statement at a mass demonstration of support for the Government, attended by about 200 people, at Port Augusta: ‘I had no associations with CIA money in Australia as Mr Anthony has.’ He is also reported as having said: ‘And they are getting more desperate, these men who are subsidised by the CIA. ‘ The Prime Minister’s clear intention was to create an impression that I was improperly involved with and receiving money from the intelligence organisation of another nation. Naturally, the Prime Minister’s plan was eagerly taken up by the media. In fact the Prime Minister’s misrepresentation was very successful. The evil and sinister connotations he sought to imply have no doubt been accepted by those few people who still believe that the Prime Minister tells the truth.

On Sunday afternoon my office telephoned the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Sydney and a statement was given to the Commission in which I categorically denied the Prime Minister’s reported allegation that my Party had been supported financially by the Central Intelligence Agency. My statement was reported in the 7 p.m. radio news bulletin, but the 7 p.m. television news bulletin, which carried a full report of the Prime Minister’s allegation, did not cover my denial. I ask leave to have my statement incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 2727

MEDIA RELEASE

page 2727

PRIME MINISTER’S ALLEGATION OF CIA SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL COUNTRY PARTY

Statement by the Leader of the National Country Party, M r Anthony

The Prime Minister must be losing his grip when he resorts to such fabrications.

Mr Whitlam ‘s behaviour has been rapidly becoming more irrational over the last week or so.

He is defying the legal actions of the Senate, and a principle he has himself previously strongly asserted and sought to use to bring about an election. Now he is threatening to govern without Parliament’s approval of his spending.

Nothing that a man acting so irresponsibly might now do or say should cause any surprise.

I am able to give the Australian people a categorical denial of Mr Whitlam ‘s charge that my party has been supported by the CIA and overseas shipbuilders.

I wonder if he can give a denial that he gets funds from Communist-controlled unions?

Sunday, 2 November 1975

This statement refers to claims made at Port Augusta today by the Prime Minister, as reported by the ABC.

Mr ANTHONY:

- Mr Speaker, I hope to have your indulgence to deal fully with the Prime Minister’s misrepresentation because I am sure you realise that his accusation is a very serious one indeed. The Prime Minister’s allegation appears to have been based on the fact that 9 years ago I let my house in Canberra to an

American family. I want to present all the facts of this matter to the House so that it and the community at large can judge the validity of the Prime Minister’s accusations and the character of my accuser. Towards the end of 1 966 my family and I decided, because of family illness, to live in our home at Murwillumbah for several months rather than in our home at Hughes in Canberra. I asked a real estate firm in Canberra- then known as Mary Thynne Real Estate and now known as Thynne Real Estate -to try to find a tenant for our Canberra house. That firm let the house to a Mr and Mrs Richard Stallings whom I did not know and had not met. The Stallings occupied the house from 15 October 1966 to 28 January 1967, a period of about 3¥i months. They paid rent of $42 a week.

page 2728

NEWLET 15.10.66-28.1.67

The total payments, less commission and other charges, amounted to $541.29 over 3% months.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I have obtained from Thynne Real Estate a copy of a ledger sheet which records details of the rent collected and the commission and other charges deducted. I table the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

– You cannot table the document.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Commission: $11.45

Mr ANTHONY:

– I thank the House.

Mr Keogh:

– How much did you pay the Government for the house?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Bowman remain silent. Some members of the Opposition might do the same.

Mr ANTHONY:

-For the information of the honourable member who interjected, I have also included this in my taxation return in case he wants to investigate my taxation return. I first met the Stallings family after the house had been let by Mary Thynne Real Estate and after they had moved in. I learned later that Mr Stallings was employed by the United States Defence Department. I also became aware of where he was working in Australia. It is now claimed by the Prime Minister that Mr Stallings was a member of the CIA. If he was a member of the CIA I certainly did not know he was. I imagine it is not the kind of thing that the CIA would go around telling people. Whether Mr Stallings was a member of the CIA or not, he and his wife proved to be very charming people when we became acquainted with them and after they moved into our house. In fact we became friends. My wife spent three or four days with them a year or two later in their home at Alice Springs and we still exchange Christmas cards and an occasional letter. I do not know whether there is anything sinister in the fact that their cat also gave birth to kittens under my daughter’s bed while they were living in the house. I think the Prime Minister’s scurrilous misrepresentation can be judged by the House and by the people. I think the motives of the misrepresentation can also be judged and will be judged. I regret to say that the mirepresentation by the Prime Minister has caused Mr Stallings, who is today retired and who is very seriously ill, considerable distress. My office was advised of this fact by a journalist in the Press Gallery who phoned Mr Stallings in the United States. The journalist said that Mr Stallings was obviously very ill. I suppose other reporters have also pestered Mr Stallings about this matter as a direct result of the Prime Minister’s shameful and untrue allegations against me. I hope the Prime Minister will have the grace to acknowledge the very serious and grave error he has made. I hope he will also have the decency to offer an apology to Mr Stallings for the distress this disgraceful and despicable attack has caused him.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes, by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) over the weekend and by a number of his ministerial colleagues in relation to some gifts that were given to my wife. First let me say that it was alleged that no personal explanation was made by me in relation to a statement made by my wife at a luncheon in Albury some 5 years ago. It might be of interest to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) who made this allegation to know that he was as inaccurate in his understanding of the Standing Orders as he was in his allegation that the ships with which the gifts were associated belonged to the Australian National Line. Under our Standing Orders it is not possible for an honourable member to make a personal explanation on a statement made by another person irrespective of that person’s relationship to him.

Secondly, it was alleged in this chamber by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) that an offer was made to me over the telephone by a journalist. No person, journalist or otherwise, has made any offer to me. I believe that an approach was made to my office. I have not received such an approach. Let me comment on it directly. An allegation was made by the Prime Minister in Whyalla over the weekend as to the valuation of the jewellery. I have nothing to add to what I said about the valuation in this House last week. However, I believe that the circumstances of gifts made not only to Ministers but also to honourable members create a climate within which it might be possible for some register to be constituted and to be held so that the gifts in some way can be fully disclosed. I shall discuss that matter with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to ensure that information about all such gifts, whether they are made to Ministers or to back bench members, is freely revealed and is available to all people. Finally, the Prime Minister referred to the Bourbons in his comments about gifts which were made to my wife. Might I remind him of the motto of his alma mater- honi soit qui maly pense.

page 2729

THE PARLIAMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The persistent endeavours by the Prime Minister and the Government to denigrate Parliament, its prerogatives and practices.

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

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes………. 62

Noes………. 56

Majority……. 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2730

CAPTAINS FLAT (ABATEMENT OF POLLUTION) AGREEMENT BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-After the serious issues raised at question time, which has just concluded, and the matters which the members of the Opposition wanted to draw to the attention of the House in discussing a matter of public importance with regard to the persistent endeavours by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Government to denigrate the Parliament, its prerogatives and practices-

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member should relate his remarks to the Bill but he is repeating the text of a previous matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I am having great difficulty in hearing the honourable member. I ask the honourable member to continue before I rule on the point of order.

Mr Uren:

– He is trying to repeat the full text of the previous -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr WILSON:

– It is quite clear that the members of the Government Party were wanting to run away from the opportunity for this House to discuss a matter of public importance. In speaking to the Bill which is now the subject of discussion I was drawing your attention, sir, to the fact that this is a relatively minor matter when compared with the very serious issues which affect not only the people of Captains Flat but also the whole Australian nation. We have been denied the opportunity of discussing matters of national import and we are now given the opportunity to deal with a matter which affects a local area. That topic of course is of vital importance to the people of Captains Flat and to the people of Canberra because of the implications and consequences of the manner in which mining was carried out in the past in this area and the effect of the pollution that can come from the ineffective and unfortunate way in which mine wastes were accumulated. The purpose of the Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Bill is to ratify an agreement between the Australian Government and the Government of New South Wales. I draw attention to the fact that although there is an agreement attached to the Bill it is not that agreement that we are approving. We are approving an agreement substantially in that form.

I want, in passing, to express concern about the practice, in a matter such as this, of not giving the Parliament the opportunity of approving the precise Agreement. When a Bill is presented in this form and the House is invited to approve an agreement substantially in the form of that contained in the schedule, it is proper for members of this House to ask what possible variations could there be. We could also find ourselves in some disputation as to what is substantially in accordance with the Agreement if the terms now contained in the schedule are to be varied in any respect.

The history of Captains Flat is a long one. One could, perhaps, inject a light note into the discussion. I guess a large number of people think that the town’s name derived from a sea captain or a military captain, but the most commonly accepted explanation of the derivation of the name is from neither of these. The name, it is said, came from a bullock called Captain who enjoyed the pastures on the upper reaches of the Molonglo River where it passed through the valley in which Captains Flat is now situated. The early history of Captains Flat derived not so much from the bullock but from the fact that early settlers in the area found gold. Gold mining was carried out there in the 1 880s, but it was not until the late 1920s or early 1930s, that mining operations again were carried out at Captains Flat.

During the early discoveries, although the search was mainly for gold, copper and silver were found. In the 1920s, with the price of lead and zinc rising, it was found that deposits of those metals were available to be mined. One of the reasons that delayed the commercial production of these metals was the fact that a sulphur lode had to be appropriately treated. When techniques for this treatment were discovered, mining, though at first delayed by the great Depression, got under way in 1936-37 when Lake George Mines Pty Ltd commenced work. The revival of Captains Flat, like its rise, was sudden but unlike the boom of the early 1880s it was not directed, as I have mentioned, to the extraction of gold but was directed to the extraction primarily of lead and zinc. That mining continued until 1962 when, very suddenly on 11 March 1962 the mine was closed. The scene at Captains Flat has been described in the following terms:

Above the quiet and now inconsequential village of Captain’s Flat loom the huge ash-grey dumps of mineral wastes, which some believe pose a constant threat to the waters of the Molonglo River. Back as far as Foxlow are the devastated fields where floodwaters years ago carried poison from the mine for miles along the Molonglo Plains. These are the signs of Captain’s Flat, a town nurtured by the mines which would have allowed its destruction as a matter of course. Now, its tumultuous past behind it, its easy access, cheap housing and town facilities bid fair to give it a tranquil future.

Captains Flat, situated as it is about 30 miles from Canberra, does in fact pose a threat to the waters of the Molonglo as a consequence of pollution that can come from the mine wastes and tailings that have been dumped in the so described ash grey dumps.

The situation at Captains Flat has been described as a nasty sight. At long last this legislation is designed to provide funds to enable that pollution danger to be avoided. The Agreement entered into by the Australian Government with the New South Wales Government is to provide $2.5m for a program designed to prevent pollution along the Molonglo River from the abandoned mine and tailing dumps at Captains Flat. The works will involve the reshaping of the dumps, draining, revegetation and subsequent maintenance over a 5-year period. The works will be carried out on a joint basis by the New South Wales Department of Public Works and the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction in association with the Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales. The Australian Government is to provide 80 per cent of the capital cost and the New South Wales Government 20 per cent of the cost, the money in the first instance being provided by way of loans under this legislation by the Australian Government. The loan is to be repayable by the New South Wales Government over a period of 20 years.

Mr Uren:

– The 20 per cent is a loan; the 80 per cent is a grant.

Mr WILSON:

-I made it clear that 80 per cent of the funds are being provided by the Australian Government by way of grant, that 20 per cent is being provided by New South Wales and that that 20 per cent in the first instance is being made available by the Australian Government by way of loan to the New South Wales Government to be repaid by that Government over a 20-year period. In addition, of course, to the capital cost of the works now to be carried out in accordance with the Agreement, an annual commitment for maintenance will be borne equally by the 2 governments. It is hoped by those experts who have had the opportunity of devising the program that this Agreement will implement that work can be carried out which will prevent the pollution that might otherwise occur.

The Opposition supports the Bill and hopes that it is speedily passed so that the authorisation for the funds can be granted and the work can proceed with all proper speed and if possible completed before next winter. In concluding my remarks on this Bill I would like to comment generally upon the necessity for this Bill at all. It is very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to look back and say that the course of action in the 1880s when gold mining was carried out, and that the course of action in the 1930s when lead and zinc mining was carried out, led to a result which in the 1970s creates a potential pollution hazard. But there is a lesson to be learnt from this. The actions that we take today in any form of development or human activity can have consequences far into the future unless we lift our sights and try to forecast the likely potential consequences of actions that we take.

I am sure at the time when the mines were being developed that the full implications of what was likely to follow from the building up of these dumps and tailings were not adequately appreciated. What needs now to be understood is that when this sort of activity is undertaken efforts need to be made to ensure that damage is not caused to the environment in the future, taking account not only the environment as it exists at the time but also the environment as it may exist with the development that takes place in other areas. For example the danger of this pollution may not have been nearly as serious had the Molonglo been a free flowing river. But with the plans, which have now turned into reality, for creating Lake Burley Griffin, the greater is the threat to Canberra as well as the existing threat to the area immediately surrounding the dumpings.

So, whilst in my opening comments I did say that this Bill related to a local issue, it has great importance to the local people of Captains Flat and importance to the residents of Canberra. But it also has importance to the nation if we draw from the need for this legislation the necessary lesson to ensure that in the future we make decisions that prevent the need to allocate resources to overcome difficulties by anticipating those difficulties and preventing them occurring.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) who has just spoken to the House has not emphasised the national characteristic of this particular problem in a very real sense. The Molonglo River flows into the Murrumbidgee which flows into the Murray and of course the people of Adelaide are dependent upon the Murray. We cannot go pouring lead and zinc as it is being poured into the Molonglo without having subsequent influence throughout the entire river system of Australia. It is a condemnation of the Opposition that while in government it allowed this thing to fester and pollute this river system in the way in which it has been in a fairly severe form certainly since 1962.

In 1898 Captains Flat was known as Bog Town. It seems somehow appropriate to recall this name to the House at this moment as we consider the Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Bill. In those days it was a busy town with 3 hotels and a population of about 4000 to 5000 people. It had a reputation for boisterous living. It has always been a political town as Billy Hughes found out at a meeting which turned out to be a miners’ demonstration against the Government of the day and its intervention in a miners’ dispute at Lucknow. These days the political drive at Captains Flat is spearheaded by a gentleman called Tommy Kerr, a man who has a striking facial resemblance to Bob Hawke and who defends Captains Flat with the same vigour that his counterpart employs to defend the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I, as the Federal member, have often been at the butt of that type of defence.

Mining commenced at Captains Flat in 1874 and continued until 1962. During this period 4 million tons of ore were milled to produce zinc, pyrites, lead, copper and gold. Over 2 million tons of mine waste was stockpiled in dumps covering approximately 15 hectares. There are 2 ore bodies at Captains Flat. The northernmost is called Elliots and is the main body, while the southernmost is called Keatings and is the source of the present-day problem. According to the Sydney Mail of 3 July 1 897, a shaft was sunk during that year and went 700 feet into that Keatings section. It was then opened up at different levels of 100 feet apart. Water from a nearby creek called Forsters Creek now runs into a collapsed section of this Keatings section. It runs through the entire mine workings, picking up iron sulphate, sulphuric acid and, to a lesser extent, the sulphates of zinc, copper, lead and other trace elements. Indeed a very potent liquid emerges from the northern edge of the mine and flows into the Molonglo River and consequently, as I have already mentioned, through the river system to Adelaide. This mine waste has at times adversely affected parts of the river below Captains Flat for drinking water, irrigation, watering stock and Ashing. It certainly has reduced the aesthetic appeal of Captains Flat. It has significantly decreased the abundance and diversity of aquatic life in the upper reaches of the river below Captains Flat.

Apart from this relatively slow but constant and chronic problem there is a more acute problem: If heavy and sustained rain falls in the area it is conceivable that a dump could collapse into the Molonglo River, blocking it and flooding part of Captains Flat township, possibly including the workers’ club which would have a crucial significance to the Captains Flat residents. Collapses occurred in 1939 and 1942. These caused considerable damage in the area. As recently as 30 September 1975 the joint Government committees, that is New South Wales and Australian governments committees were informed that a very real hazard to life now exists as a result of the mine waste dumps at Captains Flat. As a result of the discussions between the 2 governments at both ministerial and officer level a report was prepared setting out control measures. In this report it is recommended that the dumps be reshaped and that these reshaped dumps be covered with layers of clay, rock and soil, followed by revegetation of the area. Other works suggested include channel linings and conduits in the Forsters Creek area to reduce water from the creek flowing into the mine.

The present Bill will provide $2. 5m for capital works, $1.5m being provided during 1975-76. Financial assistance is also to be provided for the maintenance work involved in the structures that will be built to overcome this problem. The State Government would like to be in a position to let a contract by Christmas and it is expected that once the job is commenced it will take one year for completion. Naturally this work will attract people to Captains Flat, both in the short term to work on the job and in the longer term because the proposed work will enhance Captains Flat as a place to live. With these works, and others proposed for the area, I feel that we will see the development of a successful dormitory area in Captains Flat in the same style as that now developing in Bungendore. Toward this end this Government has provided more than $54,000 to restore the school to a proper standard to enable it to give to the children of Captains Flat education at the level that we must expect in this day and age.

We may again witness the scene described in 1898 in Captains Flat. It was described as a busy little town with its own skating rink, skittle alley, dance hall, billiard saloon and a newspaper. Life was even leisured and gracious. It is said that to see the miners parading in the street of Bog Town of an evening in their bell-bottom trousers and short coats, along with their ladies whose slim waists and bustles graced the streets of Bog Town, would make many of our aristocracy feel envious. After the mine closed in May 1899 it stayed closed until 1937 when the Lake George mining company started work. The new revival was more soundly based than the first mine, but again the mine closed dramatically on 1 1 March 1 962 and the mainstay of the Captains Flat economy was removed. In spite of the inclusion of non-pollution conditions in the mining leases for the Lake George mines, in spite of 2 attempts by the company costing $28,000, the mine subsequently closed leaving this massive pollution problem. The State Government had to carry out further measures costing over $65,000 to effect a partial solution to the problem. But now it has become essential to allocate the amount in this Bill to overcome the major problem left by the mining operation.

Apropos the name of the town I might just mention that I have authoritatively been informed that it was named after a Captain Tom Sawyer who married the governess of the Governor of Port Arthur gaol in Tasmania. As a wedding gift the Governor provided land at Captains Flat for Captain Tom Sawyer and his wife. It is considered that this is the basis for the name of Captains Flat. Certainly it is a more acceptable name to the residents of Captains Flat at the moment than the name Bog Town. As the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) has detected, I have a very special and close affection for Captains Flat.

Mr Kelly:

– And an intimate knowledge.

Mr WHAN:

– Indeed, and an intimate knowledge. My affection for the town is based on the fact that it voted 82 per cent for Labor in the last elections. Of course my affection very definitely reaches to the people themselves. This is a town which has survived because of the activities of one or two individuals, one of whom I have named and to whom I here pay tribute, Tommy Kerr. These individuals managed to hold the town together after the dramatic closure of the Lake George Mines operations in 1962. The town has been kept going and I believe it will form the base of a different type of community in the future. It will be a community on whose future we can depend. Mining operations, by definition, can continue for only a short period. I believe the future of Captains Flat now rests on its development as an attractive dormitory area for the Canberra-Queanbeyan region. It will attract a type of person different from those who pioneered the region. Nevertheless they will be people who will make a major contribution to the future of Captains Flat. I believe that by attacking and doing something about the problem that exists because of the mullock heaps at Captains Flat this Government has made a major contribution to the future of the town, to the future of Canberra’s water supply and to reducing the pollution levels in the Molonglo River and improving the water supplies in the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers for people living downstream. This is long overdue action and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-The House should be thankful to the honourable member for- Eden Monaro (Mr Whan) for recalling the history of the Captains Flat area and the role of the early settlers. I believe he would have identified very well with those early settlers. He mentioned that at the last election the area voted about 80 per cent for Labor. That may have been the position in the last elections but it will not be the case in the next elections.

Mr Uren:

– The town will vote 100 per cent Labor next time.

Mr HODGES:

-That is the Minister’s opinion but my belief is that it will be nothing like that at the next elections. I believe that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro did not appreciate that the Opposition realises the true significance of the work to be carried out, with respect to not only the Molonglo River, Lake Burley Griffin and Canberra but also the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers. The Captains Flat (Abatement of Pollution) Agreement Bill 1975 concerns the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government and makes provision for something like $2.5m to be expended on works necessary for the abatement of pollution. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) is to be congratulated for taking this step. Pollution in Australia has come more under public scrutiny in the past five to ten years than probably at any other time in the previous 200 years- not only pollution of rivers, streams and bays, but also pollution of air. We have come to expect greater pollution containment standards today than ever before. Local authorities are particularly concerned with the disposal of sewage effluent. Demands made on local authorities to upgrade the standards of effluent are causing them concern and a great deal of expense.

I believe that conservationists have an important role to play in this area. They must keep a watchful eye on the situation. Nevertheless it is my firm belief that people are still the most important things on the face of the earth. Quite frankly I believe that some conservationists would, if they had their way, have all people living in bark huts. We must pay attention to our extractive industries. One has only to travel throughout this country to realise that in the past the attitude was: ‘Get out the minerals and let us not worry too much about the scars we leave. Let someone else, perhaps in the future, look after the legacy that is left’. That has been the case with Captains Flat. Permanent scars, made principally by the mining industries, must not be allowed to remain. It is interesting to note that in recent years governments have made a number of advances in this respect. One has only to look at the sand mining that has gone on in Queensland and in Western Australia to realise that as a result of restoration work the countryside in many instances is far better than it was in its original state.

I do not want to add a great deal to the comments made by the two previous speakers to this Bill. I have read the second reading speech of the Minister. I believe the proposed works will result in the necessary abatement of the problem that exists. Much can be done to prevent leaching processes. I have seen such work carried out in mining areas of North Queensland where in some areas the pollution problem has been serious. If the water system involved does not flow through country where the effects of siltation can be serious downstream there is no great problem but in this instance we are discussing the water flowing into Lake Burley Griffin and thence into the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers. The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

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

– We recognise the addition to the ranks of conservationists and activists of honourable members opposite. We are grateful to have on our side people who for forty or fifty years neglected everything in this area and wherever it was possible opposed anything we attempted to do to control miners and private enterprise exercises that did not contribute to the well-being of the community. Of course this was just one of the facts of life. This afternoon I propose to remind honourable members of some of the history of the Captains Flat area. Honourable members from both sides have mentioned some dates. I think the first letter on this matter was written in about 1911. It pointed out that pollution would result from the activities at Captains Flat. However it was in 1928 that the first letter of the modern series was written. For some time thereafter there was batting backwards and forwards between the 2 governments, the Australian Government and the opposing New South Wales Government. Even though at some times they belonged to the same political party they did not get too close together. Perhaps today we are paying a tribute to a new spirit abroad. It all depends on how quietly one is able to do things and how specifically one is able to undertake activities.

My colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), myself as Minister for the Capital Territory and our colleague, Dr Cass, as the then Minister for Environment, conferred with 3 Ministers from New South Wales, the Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Fife, the Minister for Public Works, Mr Punch, and the Minister for Health, Mr Waddy. We met in January of last year and started negotiations on this matter. We got, as it were, a communal attitude. I suppose this is the only way in which our federation will advance. People must sit down and discuss specific matters regardless of politics to try to resolve a situation. Possibly many lessons are to be learned from what has taken place throughout Australia in the last 3 years. I pay a tribute to my colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, for the way in which he has been able to negotiate in many instances with his political opposites and get them to come to the party. My only wish is that we could carry this further and get some members opposite to recognise the facts of life- to recognise that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way to make the nation work.

This is an important Bill. The fact that it has taken so many years for action to be taken is sad. Nevertheless I hope it is recorded and noted everywhere that had it not been for a change of government in 1972 we still would not have this Bill before us. There is no possibility that the Opposition would have got around to introducing such legislation or taking action of the sort contemplated. This was one of those things that were always swept under the mat, put into the ‘Too Hard’ basket or the ‘Forget’ file. Today we are celebrating the introduction of this Bill. We must recognise the necessity to apply absolute and strict controls to the mining industries. Of course mines produce many things that make modern life possible. It is true that they also take their profits and leave. Throughout history the mining industry across all continents has always been, one may say, part of the most extravagant system of vandalism which private enterprise can dream up. It has always been able to dig holes in the ground, make whatever mess it might around the place, destroy the environment and leave. No matter what guarantees a mining company gave or left behind of course once it has gone into liquidation there is nothing you can do about it.

We are attempting by this legislation to solve a problem involving between 2 million and 4 million tonnes of refuse left by miners who over the best part of a century took their profits and then left the area. The profits might even have left the country. All I would say is that here of course in the Australian Capital Territory we are taking every possible step to ensure that this does not happen again. I am quite conscious that my friends who sit opposite- despite what one may call audience participation on the other side of the House in the last few minutes in the form of interjections, despite what might appear to be the position to the people in the galleries that those opposite do not really care about this sort of thing- are in fact starting to take an interest in it too. I regret it has taken 50 years or more but in

Australian politics there are no slower slow learners than the members of the current Opposition. So I hope that as our policies develop in the area of mineral control, as honourable members opposite start to negotiate more closely with their colleagues in the State parliaments, it will be realised that for the present and for the future it is an absolute unconditional national necessity to bring the mining interests of Australia under tight control. My own personal view is, of course, that the minerals in the ground belong to the people absolutely and that therefore the exploitation of them must be brought under total public control, not necessarily of course under total public ownership although I personally believe that the profits that flow from mining ought to flow back into the public coffers.

Today we celebrate the initiatives of the Labor Government taken after so many years of neglect by the people who now sit opposite. I congratulate those people who have brought this proposal to fruition. They are basically the officials who made the arrangements and who brought about the agreement, particularly Mr Davis in my own Department. I only hope that my friends opposite, particularly the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who, not having been a member of this place for long, has not been totally subverted by his associations with the people on that side of the House, may yet receive salvation through the advice received from this side of the House. This is a very important national enterprise, as my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) has said. So I hope that the people opposite under our continuing encouragement will mend their ways and co-operate more continuously in wider areas.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-Needless to say the Opposition does approve and support the Bill and the efforts of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren).

Mr Bryant:

– And the Minister for the Capital Territory.

Mr HUNT:

– And the efforts of the Minister for the Capital Territory to get together with the New South Wales Government to overcome a source of pollution that has been causing some concern in the Molonglo River and also in Lake Burley Griffin itself. Fortunately one does not get too upset when the Minister for the Capital Territory is uncharitable because he always does it with a great big grin on his face and nobody takes him too seriously. But if one did, one would assume that the Liberal-Country Party governments in the previous 23 years had not done a thing, that we were slow learners and that we had not achieved much at all. The truth of the matter is that we would not have an Australian Capital Territory and the Minister would not even have had a portfolio to administer, a city to administer or Lake Burley Griffin to worry about, had it not been for the activities of former Liberal-Country Party governments and indeed a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, who did so much to make the national capital a city of international significance.

Clearly it has been only in the last four or five years that the extent of the pollution from the Captains Flat area became fully known. I do not take anything away from the Government in respect of its efforts to try to get to the source of the problem. I think that the Government has acted very wisely and the agreement that has been reached with the New South Wales Government for the abatement of pollution at Captains Flat is a very good one indeed. I give the Ministers, particularly the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for the Capital Territory, full credit for what they have done. I note that the New South Wales Government plans to approve a contract in the next few weeks and this should allow remedial works to be completed in substantial measure before next winter. The sooner,, of course, these works are carried out the sooner we can overcome and try to head off the growing pollution problem that has been occurring in the Molonglo River and also in Lake Burley Griffin itself. The Opposition does support the Bill and commends it to the House.

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

– in reply- In summing up I thank the Opposition for agreeing with the approach taken by the Government. I think the major aspect to bear in mind, apart from stopping pollution, is the importance of the Commonwealth-State relationship that has been achieved in bringing about this Bill because, as has been said, between 1962 and 1972 no agreement had been entered into. Had we not formed the Government in 1972 quite frankly I doubt that the Opposition, which was then in government, would have really been able to bring about this agreement. Even though the Opposition has charged this Government- the Whitlam Government- over and over again with being a centralist government, one which starves the States of funds, in fact this is a good example of how we have been able to get together with the New South Wales Government on a real basis of co-operation to solve a very difficult problem.

The only other aspect I want to emphasise relates to comments by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), the spokesman for the Opposition on this matter. He said this legislation was not of very great significance.

Mr Wilson:

– I related it to general matters.

Mr UREN:

– I realise that, but the whole point about the environment is that little mistakes build up into a great bundle of mistakes. So the quality of the water which reaches Adelaide is interrelated with this matter. This Government that is now in power had to commit itself to $80m on 1972 values to try to bring about purification of that water system. Nobody knows how important this is more than the honourable member for Sturt whose electorate has probably got the worst quality water of any federal electorate in South Australia. Yet he says this legislation is not of any real importance. This legislation is of great importance because the mining refuse at Captains Flat is related to the pollution of the River Murray system over the years. Even though Captains Flat is on the Molonglo River the water from this river runs into the Murrumbidgee which in turn runs into the Murray. This is how this whole question of the interrelationship arises. This is why we in the Department of Urban and Regional Development and also the Department of Environment look into every interrelationship, try not to minimise issues and try to look at the broad picture.

I want to say something, as my colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) did, about the teamwork involved in bringing about this agreement. I want to thank the officers in the Department of Urban and Regional Development, the Department of Capital Territory and the Department of the Environment who were able to work with their counterparts in the States in order to try to solve this problem. I have found from experience that the only way we can get co-operation in Australia, State and local government affairs if for the people at the bureaucratic level, the officers, to build up a basis of trust after political leadership is provided. This brings about co-operation between all levels of government and is the way to solve problems relating to urban and regional affairs or the environment. That is the only way we can work together. To a great extent I believe that this legislation is a step in that direction and I commend that Bill to the House. I am pleased to hear the Opposition at last giving us support. We in the Government are grateful for any crumb that falls from the table of the Opposition.

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.

page 2737

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Enderby.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The purpose of this Bill is to pass into true law, so to speak, and thus establish a consolidated new schedule of tariff rates, the tariff changes which the Government introduced since September last as well as the increases in customs duty which formed part of the present Budget- those higher prices for cigarettes, beer and petrol which were such a blow to the ordinary Australian and which he will remember very well when they are reflected in the December quarter consumer price index. In addition to those changes in duties specifically listed in the second reading speech by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby), and in a number of cases as part of them, the Government has implemented a variety of more direct controls on imports. What a catalogue it is. It includes import restraints on products ranging all the way from various clothing items to motor vehicles, steel sheets, ball bearings and sunglasses. You name it and it is on the list.

The illegality, the impropriety, the dishonesty of the loans affair, and the misleading of the Parliament and the people in the subsequent cover up of Watergate dimensions by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and this Government, which continues to this day, have rightly held the centre of the stage during the past few weeks. While that is the ultimate measure of the Government’s unfitness to govern, of basic importance is the incompetence and ineptitude of this Government in the management of Australia’s economic affairs which has brought the Australian economy to the brink of economic disaster. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the sphere of tariff policy, or rather the lack of it. This Bill sets out and enacts the tariff changes the Government has made since last September. In addition, as I said, there is this long list of more direct measures to retrict imports. What a catalogue of stop-gap, band aid actions, of backing and filling, by this Government it presents.

The previous Customs Tariff Bill that we debated embodied the 25 per cent tariff cut of July 1973. What an ill-judged and ill-advised measure that was, as much in its adverse impact on business confidence in sowing utter bewilderment among businessmen as in its direct effect. However, we have gone over that ground before. Those silent textile mills in Launceston last June were testimony enough to the damage done by that measure. It was part of a headlong rush by the Government to cut tariffs in a bid to lower prices at a stroke and thereby win easy votes. It was part also of the attempt to accommodate a rapid enlargement of the public sector upon which this socialist Government was so hell bent. Its view was: ‘To heck with the private sector, cut it back and let it shed resources to feed a ballooning government’. That was the approach at that time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you should note its importance. It is the ideology, the centralist socialist ideology of this Government that causes the trouble all along the line.

After that headlong rush to cut tariffs the Government over the past 12 months has just as rapidly backed off, at least in a wide variety of industries, and has reinstated many tariffs to their former level. That is the purpose of quite a number of the measures listed in the Minister’s speech. I refer to the decision relating to Foundation Garments, for instance, or Woven Manmade Fibre Fabrics, or perhaps most importantly the 10 percentage points increase in primage in respect of motor vehicles introduced on 13 November last year. The Government not only restored the rate in that way but also has added the even stronger protection of direct import control. What I am saying is that the duty on motor vehicles has been restored to 45 per cent, the level prevailing before the tariff slash, and in addition there have been direct import restrictions.

This backing off has been an interesting spectacle. When the Prime Minister was warned of the effects of his Government’s tariff slashing in about September of last year what was his response? He called those who dared to raise their voices ‘nervous Nellies’, or, even worse, ‘pedlars of lies’.

Mr Lucock:

– He ought to know all about that.

Dr EDWARDS:

-Yes, as my colleague the honourable member for Lyne interjects, he ought to know all about that. Is there a better case of the pot calling the kettle black than that statement? A good question to ask is: Who was right? Unemployment then was less than 100 000 but today it is 300 000. Somebody had good cause to be nervous! Uncertainty in industry has been generated by the wholehearted move, firstly, to slash tariffs and then this situation of a considerable reversal, along with an intermixture of hard line decisions- my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will recall the decision relating to mushrooms. All this backing and filling, this unpredictability, has been a major cause of the lack of confidence, the frustration and uncertainty in industry that currently afflicts us. Note that I do not begrudge industry the tariff and other protection to which I have referred. But let us be quite clear that this has been panic action by an inept Government designed to minimise the adverse effects of its own previous ill-judged, ill-advised unilateral actions. Which way it would be likely to go from here in the unlikely event that it should retain office no one knows, and that is the problem of business.

Sitting suspended from I to 2 p.m.

Dr EDWARDS:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I was saying that this Bill seeks to enact a series of tariff changes and associated measures, many of which represent panic measures designed to mitigate the adverse effects of the Government’s own previous ill-advised unilateral actions. Properly to assess their importance it is necessary to see these changes in the context of the whole range of ill-advised wrong-headed measures that have been taken by this Government and which have brought about the disastrous economic situation- of record unemployment, inflation, no growth and the end of many small businesses- that now afflicts the country.

First and foremost the tariff changes are intimately related in their effect to currency changes. One of the very first actions of the Government was to up-value the currency by the order of 7 per cent. While that one move was not without some justification the Government did it again in effect several months later and again in September 1973 to the point where, on average, the currency was up-valued in excess of 20 per cent and 30 per cent vis-a-vis some currencies such as sterling. In combination with the tariff changes the position of many import competing industries and other Australian industries seeking to export was rendered untenable and many thousands of Australians employed in those industries were thrown out of jobs. There were other things. The Government abolished investment allowances. It halved export incentives which has had such a major effect in cutting down the export of motor vehicles.

But going back to the central difficulty, almost as soon as the Government attained office it embarked on the biggest spend-up in the history of this nation thereby initiating the inflation from which we still suffer. At least that was the major cause of the inflation from which we still suffer. This was a spend-up which culminated in the increase in Government spending of 46 per cent in the last financial year. Just imagine that- there was a gradual increase in government spending from Federation up to 30 June 1974 and then last financial year this amount was increased in one year by nearly half as much again. No economy, not even the resilient Australian economy, could stand the impact of that sort of change.

With one foot thus on the fiscal accelerator, as one might put it, the Government was obliged to slam the other foot on the brake, and that is why the credit squeeze of September 1973 was implemented. So many times Government speakers have spoken of the credit squeeze as though it had just come down from heaven, so to speak. In fact, the restriction of the money supply and the associated increase of interest rates to record levels was imposed as a matter of deliberate policy by this Government. The Government’s centralist, socialist purpose was, by the combination of tariff cuts, the up-valuation of the Australian dollar and the other measures to which I have referred, to cut back the private sector to make way for the massive expansion of the public sector which it wanted to achieve. Just how ‘successful’ has been that policy is indicated by 2 main statistics. In the most recent 12 months for which we have statistics employment in the private sector fell by 150 000 persons while employment in the government sector increased by 93 000 persons. Unemployment, wholly due to the weakness of the private sector, is of the order of 300 000 persons and according to the Government’s own forecasts, is increasing. In the manufacturing sector- that sector which is most vulnerable to the tariff changes that are the subject of this debate- there has been a shedding of employment of some 134 300 persons in the last 12 months. I seek leave to have a table showing that incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

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

Dr EDWARDS:

– They are not the only statistics to which one might refer. With pressure on profitable business operation from these tariff cuts- partially reversed as I have suggested by the measures now before the Parliament and by the devaluation of September 12 months agowith the perverse operation of the Prices Justification Tribunal, the credit squeeze, the impact of company taxation in the inflation context, and pressed by soaring wage costs, as it were, from underneath, company profits- and this is the other statistic to which I wish to refer- have been brought to a low level. Normally company profits amount to some 15 per cent of total income in the community- that is the Gross Domestic Product at factor prices- but last year they were just over 10 per cent.

What this Government fails to recognise is that reasonable business profits, a healthy private sector and the meaningful gainful employment of many thousands of Australians go hand in hand. Today’s profits are tomorrow’s investments and the day after tomorrow’s jobs and increased incomes. That is what I am talking about- the meaningful and gainful employment of Australians. The Government purports belatedly to recognise this. But for how long? Who can say? At any rate, who can believe what the Government says? Only at the weekend Senator James McClelland from the other place, referring to the ‘grievous errors’ of the Government to which I myself have just been making reference, went on to say, as reported in the Press:

It also took some of our doctrinaire members a long time to discover that unless private enterprise is healthy the whole economy is sick.

I put it to this Parliament and to the Australian people: Have those doctrinaire members really made that discovery or is it just expedient for a short time to pretend to do so?

What gets in the way of sound policy, in the tariff as in other areas, is not just the incompetence and the ineptitude of the Government out its very ideology- its socialist, anti-business and now, if it would only realise it, anti-employee stance and actions. That is what gets in the way of sound policy at every point. Thus, it was, as 1 have said, part of this Government’s policy to accommodate an enlarged public sector that the July 1973 25 per cent tariff slash was undertaken with all the damage it has wrought. It was this ideological thrust which was at the back of the Government’s illegal, dishonest, secretive, disastrous loans affair. It is this ideology which now gets in the way of sound economic policy today. There is no way this Government could so order its priorities as to accommodate in the present Budget the imperative recommendations of the Mathews Committee- the recommendations that personal income tax be indexed and that the base of company taxation be varied to improve not just the incentive but the very capacity of business to undertake that investment which will lift the level of production and the level of employment in the future. Those recommendations by the Mathews Committee now are supported and reinforced by the Jackson Committee. The failure to give effect to this priority is the fundamental, in a sense the enduring indictment of the Government.

Who can have confidence in a government with priorities so ill-judged that the health of the private sector, and therefore the jobs- the meaningful and gainful employment of thousands of Australians- is put in jeopardy? Sometimes people say to me: ‘Well, you criticise the Labor Government’s economic policies but does it not get advice from the same Treasury, from expert committees and so on, just as the Liberal and Country Parties did in government?’ It does get advice but it does not act on it. As I have said, reasons of ideology militate against it. The Mathews Committee was established by this Government last November; it included a leading member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; it reported in May and its findings were endorsed in effect by the ACTU. Yet those imperative recommendations are put to one side. It is too difficult for the Government to assess their implications and to implement them at this time, so we are told.

I have referred to the report of the Jackson Committee tabled last Thursday. This is not the context in which to debate the report as a whole but in the specific area of tariffs the approach of the report is broadly in line with the tariff policy of the Opposition side of the House. That policy starts from the fact that the tariff has been and is the principal instrument of resource-creating industrialisation in Australia. The Liberal and National Country Parties accordingly are committed to the adequate protection of appropriate industries to foster an efficient growing and diversified manufacturing sector in Australia, complementary to our great rural and mining industries. Constancy and predictability are the essence of the matter and that is what has been lacking in the Government’s approach to tariffs over its period of office. As I said, this has contributed in a major way to the uncertainty and to the lack of confidence in the community, which is a major weakness in the current economic situation.

In saying that we are committed to the adequate protection of industry in this way, we do not rest content with the level of tariffs. The Opposition side of the House is committed to the continuing systematic review of the tariff structure which indeed was instituted by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. We are committed to that on the basis that the higher the level of assistance the more frequent should be the review. We are not committed to the proposition that assistance would not be justified simply because the required tariff duty would exceed some arithmetical percentage. The whole context of these matters has to be looked at, not just the degree of protection. For instance, the degree of ‘essentiality’ of the industry, the prospects for growth of an industry and improved productivity through economies of scale, the industry’s export potential, the extent to which it uses and enhances scientific, innovative and technological skills, and other factors have to be looked at. Nevertheless, we aver that high duties require greater justification due to the larger cost carried by the community, which means ultimately by the exporting industries and in particular by the rural and mining export industries. So higher duties require greater justification and more frequent review, and that is where the thrust of tariff change and bringing tariffs down needs to be directed.

What is then important is that change should be gradual and that there should be consultation between the Government and industry, employers and employees, concerned. Rightly, the Jackson Committee lays great stress on this last point, on developing partnership and not confrontation between the 2 sides of industry and between both and the government. In sum, the fostering of an efficient, thriving and diversified manufacturing sector is essential for the realisation of our twin national objectives of full employment and achieving the maximum capacity of this country to meet our individual and national goals. But under this Government that capacity has been brought low. The manufacturing sector has been run down and that is a long term effect, not just a passing, short term thing. Major areas of manufacturing in Australia have been abandoned for ever, not just for the time being. Major rural industries are in a parlous state.- New investment is stagnant and thereby the basis of the future growth of national output and production is undermined.

How were the various objectives emphasised by the Australian Labor Party prior to the 1972 election, and shared by this side of the House, in the field of social welfare, in education, urban development and in assistance to the poor to be achieved? They were to be achieved from the growth of the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services which provides the means to foster, to pursue these ends. What has been the record? We find an economy in which there is no growth, in which there has been no major new development project in the last 3 years. There was a statement of intent the other month but there has been no new major development project. The investment, the new plant and equipment, the new developments which provide the basis of the expansion of national output and national product in order to enable the achieving of the national objectives to which I referred have been undermined and brought low. There are 300 000 unemployed and the level is rising.

Mr Duthie:

– Who says so?

Dr EDWARDS:

-The honourable member asks who says so. The Department of Labor and Immigration’s own estimate of the seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment is 300 000. What is the Government’s prediction for next year? A range of 400 000 to 550 000 has been estimated, and that is the Government’s prediction, not some scare talk of which we are accused from the Opposition side of the House. That will almost inevitably come about from the way in which the Budget was structured and particularly with its emphasis on the maintenance of current expenditure, with the full force of its Budget cutting, so to speak, falling mainly in the capital area. The decision to implement these cuts was made long before the events currently transpiring in the Senate but there would be many an honourable member from the other side managing to convey to the electorate at this time that cutbacks and deferrals which were decided in the Budget context are now to be attributed to the action of the Opposition in the Senate.

Mr Duthie:

– Hear, hear!

Dr EDWARDS:

-Hear, hear, says the honourable member. He has probably been spreading these lies around the electorate along with others. They were deferrals, particularly in the capital area, explicitly decided in the Budget context and have nothing to do with the present events in the Senate. There are 300 000 people unemployed, and the situation is getting worse. Dozens of small businesses have either collapsed or have voluntarily ceased to operate.

Mr Duthie:

– More went bankrupt under your Government than under ours.

Dr EDWARDS:

-There is a figure of actual bankruptcies which the honourable member has considerable pleasure in quoting to me, but the number of actual bankruptcies in this last 12 months is just the tip of the iceberg. In the last 12 months or so the number of voluntary liquidations has greatly exceeded actual bankruptcies. When these matters come to a vote in an election the persons who over many years and with much effort and sacrifice have built up businesses which in the last 12 months or so have been brought to nought, will make their voices heard. In this whole context there is a bleak future for the 250 000 school leavers who will be looking for jobs in the coming months. Australia’s economy, the most resilient in the world, has been brought to economic disaster by the Whitlam Labor Government which piles impropriety on impropriety and which is manifestly unfit to govern. It has so many weaknesses that it is leaking like an overripe persimmon. The sooner it agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the Australian people, the better we will all be. Eighteen months more of this sort of economic management and the economy of Australia will be beyond repair.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-We have heard a biased view of the Government’s proposals in relation to the Customs Tariff Bill. There can be no question that from time to time it is necessary to alter tariffs and to alter the direction of economic management. Let me cite, for example, a man who was regarded as rather an illustrious Treasurer- the previous Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). He made statements like the following:

If you want to look at unemployment for economic and national purposes the figures that you should look at are the seasonally adjusted figures.

A few months later the same man said:

Seasonally adjusted unemployment figures are simply to help technical experts and Treasury officials to forecast trends.

Then just to help the electorate to understand what economic pronouncements under the Liberal-Country Party Government meant, he said:

Our position is perfectly clear. We have not yet made up our minds what our attitude should be.

That Liberal Prime Minister, telling us about the record of economic management, said:

The simple fact is that last year we had an increase in productivity of I per cent- a deplorably low figure.

He said that in the House of Representatives on 1 December 1971. That is the man who in 2 years brought $4 billion of overseas funds into this country. Yet we have the hypocrisy of the Opposition now condemning this Government for having a deficit of $2 billion. The situation that was created by bringing in $4 billion in 2 yearsmoney that was not backed up by any assets, money that purchased assets, money that added to the volume of the money flow in this countrycreated the foundation for many of the economic problems that arose subsequently. During those 2 years under the Prime Ministership of Mr McMahon we found $4 billion flowing into the country. Nothing was said about that by honourable members opposite who are so vocal in their criticism of the deficit that has been budgeted for in this Budget and the deficit that was achieved in the last Budget.

What would have happened to the economy if we had not had a deficit in the last Budget? Unemployment is already at a level intolerably high for this Government. How much worse would it have been if we had not had a deficit Budget in that particular year? In regard to economic and tariff questions it seems to me that the great difficulty is that people polarise to a particular point of view. They say either that the private sector is the only one that will succeed or that low tariffs should be the only policy. In fact there should be an amalgam of the two. To listen to the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) and to listen to the Opposition at the moment one would believe that if honourable members opposite achieved office they would reduce expenditure in the public sector to zero. According to them, the private sector holds all the solutions. I do not know why that should be so. Why should some entrepreneur who makes a judgment about the profitability of his own company thus enhance the educational facilities for the children of this country? The tenuous relationship between these two areas of decision certainly has not been connected by the Opposition’s argument.

The facts are that when this Government took office there was an outstanding deficit in educational and social facilities in the community. It is also true that we had a situation in which overprotected industry in this country raised prices to an extraordinary level compared with those charged for the same commodities overseas. It was clear that some sort of readjustment in tariffs had to take place. Once again the Government was plagued by the people who propounded one view as though it were the only solution. Clearly, we have to look at the whole question of economic management with a more rational, balanced approach than has been displayed by the Opposition which tends to shout slogans from the roof on these issues.

I have given some examples of the performance of honourable members opposite when they were in government. Let me remind the House of a few more examples of their performance as economic managers. A headline in the Age of 14 September 1972 read: ‘Sinclair, PM clash on rural bank plan’. On that particular issue the Liberal Party disposed and the Country Party proposed. On many other issues- in particular, the revaluation of the currency and tariffs, the subject of this Bill- we find that the National Country Party opposes and the Liberal Party proposes. In that coalition situation the position was stymied more often than not. There was a head-on collision, not between the

Government and the Opposition but between the 2 coalition partners. Other headlines at the time read: ‘PM shelves decision on price controls’, ‘PM, Lynch clash over cost of 35-hour week’, and ‘Is McMahon leadership good enough for Australia’. The question might now be asked: Is the possibility of a Liberal-National Country Party leadership good enough for Australia?

It is clear that the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) derives some satisfaction from his present position. Let me quote from the New South Wales Countryman, a Country Party document, of June 1975. It said:

Mr Anthony and the CP Deputy Leader, Mr Ian Sinclair, addressed the large gathering and took a leading part in the negotiations to induce back bench Labor members to reverse the Cabinet decision.

Surely it is the height of absurdity to say that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Country Party took an active role in inducing back bench Labor members to reverse a Cabinet decision. The only way they could possibly induce back bench Labor members of the Caucus to come to any decision would be to have them travel a thousand miles from wherever the Caucus was meeting. Let us turn again to the economic management offered by the Opposition. In a document circularised to all its members by the Graziers Association of New South Wales- a group which normally supports the Country Party- the Association claimed amongst many other claims which it makes, which incidentally sound like the greatest buildup that this Government could ever have, that it takes pride in having been associated with this Government on some 50 or so separate economic decisions. I quote one of them which that Association said is very important to its members. The report states that there was a long campaign for tariff reduction which finally led to a 25 per cent acrosstheboard tariff cut in 1973. According to the New South Wales Graziers’ Association this resulted in a significant reduction in the $600m tariff costs to rural exporters and also enabled the devaluation it referred to. It takes credit for the devaluation in September 1974. These are some of the statements that we can put before the House to demonstrate the way in which from time to time the Opposition’s economic management had to change direction. We on this side do not claim that any one solution- whether it be low tariffs, devaluation or appreciation- is the right thing all the time. Only the Opposition has put itself in such an inflexible position. It is clear that what is appropriate in one set of economic conditions is quite the wrong thing for another set of economic conditions.

When we look at the position we are confronted with today we see a number of elements in the economy. First of all there are a few business leaders whose political bias has got the best of them. If they had a modicum of business leadership in them before Labor took office in Canberra it has certainly evaporated since. They have simply stirred the pot and used emotive words like ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. If possible they will equate them. Today in the Australian we find an article by Mr Prowse who is one of those business stirrers, one of those people who has failed completely to provide leadership to the banking sector of this country. We find in fact that the article gently starts out with the word ‘socialism’ but of course he could not restrain himself. By the time he got to the end, after condemning various socialist economies but carefully avoiding reference to Sweden all the way, he refers to ‘socialist-communist economies’ and then he makes a comparison between the economic management of this country and Russia.

His entire article reminds me of an express train which runs into a marshalling yard. By setting the points against the main track he finally puts the express train into a coal siding. That is roughly where his argument ends up- way off the track right down the coal siding. Mr Prowse made many assumptions through his article which just do not stand a proper evaluation in order to push his political line and in order to mention as frequently as possible those dreaded emotive words of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. His partner in crime, Mr Valder, has been exposed in this place before today. Mr Valder has admitted that he does not even know what he means by the word ‘socialism’.

There are other elements in the economic climate. I believe these are the types of influences which have led the Opposition into its own coal siding and created an atmosphere around the Opposition which has led the Opposition through its own mythology to believe that the electorate is against this Government and that it can reject a Budget out of hand. Now the Opposition finds itself well and truly off the main track trying to reverse and get on to some reasonably credible course. But it is the Valders and the Prowses who helped the Opposition get into that position. Its own mythology and its own insistence that only the private sector can solve the problems of the economy, its complete refusal to acknowledge that the public sector plays a role, also helped. It is these attitudes which have led the Opposition into the incredible position it finds itself in now. Not only has the Opposition rejected the Budget but it has also rejected its own reply to the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has now told us that it is out of date, it is irrelevant. This was picked up by Kenneth Davidson in the Age. I shall just quote to the House some of what he had to say about the Opposition’s alternative proposals for the economic management of Australia. Firstly he took up the point about regular elections. He said: . . . whether the Australian economy will remain healthy with the prospect of elections every 18 months or even 6 months if the Senate so chooses is anybody’s guess.

Either Australia will enjoy greater instability or the Public Service will become the real rulers of the country. The prospect is for something of both -

Of course the honourable member for Berowra helped to give us some idea about what the Public Service would be doing if the Opposition were in office and in fact what the Public Service did when the Opposition was in Government. In referring to the advice given to the Government he said: ‘This Government does get advice but does not take it’.

Dr Edwards:

– That is right and you got in a mess.

Mr WHAN:

– The Opposition of course always took the advice. It had no initiative whatsoever. It had no policy. The Opposition in government was run by the Public Service. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) acknowledged this as recently as a few weeks ago. I read in the Press that he said that one of the problems that the Opposition had in government was not to be dominated by the Public Service in terms of decision making and policy making. There can be absolutely no question that in the LiberalCountry Party regime the Public Service ran the Government through the parties in power because the parties had no policy and no initiatives.

It is important to get advice and it is important to give that advice careful consideration, but it is vital to govern and it is vital that the Government should have policies and should have the directions established- not the type of direction that I have shown that the National Country Party proposes and the Liberal Party opposes, not that sort of stymied direction, but a clear cut direction about the ultimate objectives. What is all this rubbish about this Government not being able to manage the economy? Our record at best is of 2 years simply because it has been interrupted by people who believe they have a Godgiven right to govern, people who refuse to accept the verdict of the electorate. When those people tell us to go to the polls, what is the point? We went to the polls, the electorate elected a

Labor government and the Opposition steadfastly from that day refused to accept the verdict. What was it that the previous Leader of the Opposition said? He said he did not really lose the election. We never really knew whether he came second but the weight of that comment is now coming clear as the Opposition cries for yet another election, the verdict of which it will not accept if it goes to this Government.

I continue now with my reference to Ken Davidson’s article. He stated:

Certainly it is possible at this stage to make a convincing case that if the Fraser Government attempts to do everything it has solemnly promised in recent months- even if the promises are carried out over 3 years- the consequences for the economy would be chaotic.

For instance, the bitterness of the business community to the Government has obscured the fact that it is only Government spending which is holding the economy up to the present recession levels.

I wonder how the construction industry feels at the moment about the prospect of a LiberalNational Country Party government that is committed to slashing present Government expenditure by $ 1,000m. I wonder how the construction industry feels about the prospects of even further cuts in building activity in this economy. Ken Davidson has put his finger right on the point. He goes on to say:

Even if it were now possible for Mr Fraser to cut government spending by a promised $ 1 ,000m -

And Ken Davidson claims it is not- and the money was funnelled into tax relief, the experience in Germany, the United States, Japan and even Australia is that in present circumstances the money would tend to be saved, not spent.

Such an occurrence would, it is true, accelerate the already perceptible downward movement in inflation, but it would push Australia deeper into recession.

Later in the article he states:

Except in some synthetic sense, the election is not about the Budget, it is appropriate to current economic conditions. The Budget, in its essential elements, will survive even if the present Government does not. It will survive because the men who instigated it in the Treasury are committed to it and the Opposition has no coherent alternative.

The only alternative that it has reiterated time after time after weary time is the proposition that the private enterprise sector of the economy holds the solution to all our problems. We still do not know whether it is the intention of the Opposition to raise tariffs or to lower tariffs or what it is going to do about tariffs. The previous speaker was able to go right through his speech without committing himself on that view. If the Opposition is going to raise tariffs, which tariffs? The graziers’ association would be interested to know. If the Opposition is going to lower tariffs, which tariffs? Just where does it stand? As usual, the Opposition wants a 2-way bet. People in the Opposition will say one thing and then other people in the Opposition will say another thing.

I am absolutely certain that those people who read Hansard will see that the speaker who preceded me will have said different things from the speaker who will follow me in this debate on the subject of tariffs. There can be no question that the Opposition presents to the electorate a very mixed bag of economic policies. There can be no question that the Opposition has failed, by its record in government and by its statements in opposition, to convince the electorate that it has in any way an alternative economic management system which is superior to the way in which this Government has handled the economy in a very difficult period. There can be no question that the Opposition’s attitude to the economy is being artificially boosted by the Valders and Prousts of this land whose main aim is to get rid of the Government even at the expense of sensible and responsible leadership for their industries.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I wish to speak only about the recently published Jackson Committee Report which has just come to us. Strangely enough it came to us on Thursday of last week when this debate was listed. It came at the same time as the Industries Assistance Commission annual report. I was terrified that we would have to debate it without reading it. To have this debate without reading either of those 2 documents would have been to do them grave injustice. Several things ought to be said about the Jackson committee report. I mentioned one of them this morning. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) whether he did not think it was a significant achievement that a report could be signed by a committee with such a diverse membership in that it is made up of Mr Jackson and Mr Carnegie from the management side and Mr Hawke and Professor Wheelwright from what one calls the socialist camp. It was quite remarkable that they could come together and sign a report. I could not help thinking of Samuel Johnson’s remarks about woman’s preaching. He said:

Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

There are several things about the report which I find rather confusing but I am surprised to see them said at all. I am so impressed by what I am saying that I draw attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed)

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for Wakefield be not further heard.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 54

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-The tirade of criticism of Government economic policy which we heard a few moments ago from the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) would have been a good deal more credible if it has not been delivered in the week of presentation of the report of the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing, chaired by Mr Jackson, because that report sets out meticulously for this Parliament and for this country the real background against which the current decline in activity in manufacturing industry has taken place. I can do no better than quote from the second page of the report the following words:

The stagnation of fixed investment in constant prices is not new; it is of ten years standing. Manufacturing has tried to maintain earnings by running down its capital stock. Much of the equipment in factories, consequently is old, inefficient and overdue for replacement; desirable technical innovations have been delayed; and physical conditions for the work force leave much to be desired. For ten years the rate of growth in labour productivity of Australian manufacturing has been far below that achieved in Japan, France and Germany, and marginally below Britain and Canada.

Who would have thought, listening to the remarks of the honourable member for Berowra that that was the situation described less than a week ago by an expert committee on manufacturing industry set up under the auspices of this Government.

The honourable member for Berowra went through a number of aspects of current and recently past economic management which he said should be a source of concern to the Parliament, and so they should. But it was extraordinary that the honourable member made no reference in his speech to the great economic question which is exercising the minds of all Australians, and that is the effect of the delaying of the passage of the Budget on the economic life of this country. Most people who have looked at this question have concluded with considerable alarm that the effects of the delay in the passage of the Budget will be large-scale and enduring. Already many sectors of industry are becoming aware of the impact, and this, of course, is nowhere more apparent than in the construction industry. Let me quote the figures of arrears as they will accumulate week by week in the period immediately ahead of us. By the week ending 7 November, the current week, the accumulated arrears will be $1.5m; by 14 November, $3m; by 21 November, $4. 75m; by 28 November, Slim; by 5 December, $15m; by 12 December, $ 19m; by 19 December, $25m; by 26 December, $30m; by 2 January, $32m; and by 9 January, $35m. These are the dimensions of the interruption of cash flow in the construction industry on the part of major contractors which are following in the wake of the delay of passage of the Budget. To get a true perspective of what is going on, to take account of the impact not only on major contractors but also on sub-contractors, it is necessary to double those figures. Of course it is not primary economic impact alone that we are obliged to take into account; it is the impact on all the suppliers who work in conjunction with the construction industry, and it is the diminished purchasing power of the labour force of that industry. So, as ripples in a pool after a stone has been thrown in, that effect is spreading day by day, week by week and ultimately month by month to cover the whole gamut of economic activity in the country. It is this economic problem overwhelmingly which is preoccupying Australians at present.

I wanted to say something in the course of this debate about the prospect that the Jackson report holds out for Australia. There are no more remarkable debates in this House than those in which we hear the arch-protectionist from Berowra followed closely by the arch-free-trader from Wakefield. It is a great pity that on this occasion the honourable member for Wakefield’s own provocations deprived the House of the opportunity to get the full benefit of the contrast between his remarks and those we had already heard from the honourable member for Berowra. The Jackson Committee report steers a path between those 2 extremes. The Committee has rightly recognised in its report that Australian industry cannot carry on indefinitely with the current high levels of protection which it enjoys, historically justified though those levels of protection may have been. Equally the Committee has recognised that we cannot have too sudden shifts in the level of protection which industry enjoys if we are to have a healthy industrial climate in which, as the report points out, existing industries become the building blocks for the industries of the future.

The report rightly makes the point that we are not going to get proper acceptance of necessary changes in the structure of protection in Australia unless better methods of consultation and cooperation are devised. That is, it is simply not good enough for us to persist as we have in the past with the blunt, overnight, and even dramatic implementation of recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission reached, as they have been, simply on the basis of a hearing process. The establishment of the Industries Assistance Commission- the consolidation of the old Tariff Board and the extension of its activities to take in primary industry as well as secondary industry- has been a very great step forward indeed. Equally the practice pursued by this Government - and by none of its predecessors- of tabling in this Parliament or otherwise publishing abroad reports of the Industries Assistance Commission in their entirety is another step forward; a significant contribution towards the rationality of tariff debate in this country.

It is now time though for us to take another step forward and see that the principal parties whose interests are involved in the tariff question all get an opportunity of making their voices heard on a constructive, consultative basis. I believe that it is in that respect that the Jackson Committee report takes us further along the road to a sensible set of economic arrangements. The Jackson Committee is meticulous in the recommendations it makes for better consultative procedures in which the trade union movement as well as manufacturers themselves, governments and the consumer interest can all have a proper say. It would be very much my hope, as I believe it would be the hope of other honourable members on this side of the House, to see those proposals in particular pass very rapidly from the Green Paper stage to the White Paper stage so that we can see them embodied in legislation and put into practice at an early date. It would be unthinkable if the work which the Jackson Committee has put into this subject over the last 12 months should be lost to the country in the same way that the work done on an earlier occasion by the Vernon Committee was lost. How much better off we would now be if Sir Robert Menzies had not been so determined to pigeon-hole all the magnificent recommendations of the Vernon Committee. How much better off we would be economically, how many of the tribulations of the recent past would we have avoided if effect had been given to at least some of the recommendations of the Vernon Committee? The Australian experience over the Vernon Committee on economic matters should be a warning to us in the approach that we take to the work done by the Jackson Committee on this occasion.

It is not to the question of tariffs alone or of consultation alone to which the Jackson Committee has addressed itself. The Jackson Committee has also had some very important things to say about the weaknesses of middle management in Australia. Of course, it has related that question of the weakness of middle management in Australia to the equally pressing matter of the quality of union leadership in Australia. The Committee rightly recognises the work that was done by the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, in establishing the trade union training college. For many years in this country we have had people who were prepared to throw up their hands and bemoan the quality of union leadership. But Mr Clyde Cameron was the first Minister for Labor and Immigration that this country has had who was prepared to take the practical step of setting up the trade union training college.

Mr Sullivan:

– Why did you sack him?

Mr MATHEWS:

-The honourable member for Riverina, who is noted for the negativism of his views in this House, is amused by the existence of the trade union training college. The honourable member has been an ornament of a number of military training institutions in the course of his career and he of all the members of this House should be able to recognise the importance of training on a rather wider basis than the square-bashing which one sometimes feels has impaired the honourable member’s intellect. But the then Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, took an important step when he set up the trade union training college.

We should ask ourselves now, in connection with training for management, why it is that at the senior level this training has been taken, in the business schools of the United States. Why is it that so few of the top management people in Australia, much less the middle management people in Australia, have found it satisfactory to avail themselves of the schools of business studies at universities such as the University of Melbourne? There is an important question to be resolved here as to why the prestige of the American schools of business studies is so much greater than the prestige of the Australian schools of business studies, and has uniformly exercised its strong attraction for the future managers of Australian industry. There is a question to be asked about how much the importing into this country of American philosophies of management and, more important still, of American social and cultural assumptions has distorted the pattern of development of management in Australia. The Jackson Committee rightly brings that subject to the fore.

If we can resolve for ourselves the question of how to provide suitable training for trade union leaders in this country it should not be beyond our minds to do as much for management. It cannot be said that this is something properly to be left to the universities in isolation. It is a matter on which there should be a national policy. It is a matter towards which some Ministers in the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, to their credit, were groping their way in the last months of office of that Government. It is a matter on which initiatives from the present government are now long overdue. Again, this House should want to see the proposals put forward for training on both the employer and employee sides by the Jackson Committee carried quickly beyond the Green Paper stage to the White Paper stage and then into legislation.

The legislation before this House at the present time deals with a matter fundamental to the Australian economic structure. The question of the tariff is one which has bedevilled economic discussion in this country for a great number of years. It has spawned ideological divisions and differences which cut across the normal lines of party debate and controversy in this country as is regularly exemplified by the contributions made to debate by the honourable member for Berowra and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly). ( Quorum formed) I was making the point, when I was interrupted by the honourable member for Wakefield who seems to have lost his concern for the discussion that the tariff debate in Australia has been one of peculiar sterility and that it has led us at last into a notable blind alley. I believe it is the great contribution of the Jackson committee to have pointed the way out of that blind alley. I believe that in years to come we will see this report as a seminal contribution to economic debate in this country and will thank the members of that Committee for the work they have done.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 55

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading?

Mr Wentworth:

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the Bill as a whole?

Mr Wentworth:
The CHAIRMAN:

– In accordance with standing order 226 the Committee will consider the schedules before the clauses. Is the Committee willing to take all the schedules together?

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

Schedule 1.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 55

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Schedule 2.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 55

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 3.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule agreed to.

Progress reported.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I declare that the Customs Tariff Bill 1975 is an urgent Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is, ‘that the Customs Tariff Bill 1975 be considered an urgent Bill.’

Question put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That the allotment of time in connection with the Bill be as follows: For the remainder of the Committee stage, until 3.50 p.m. this day; for the remaining stages, until 4 p.m. this day.

Dr Edwards:

- Mr -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Order! The time allotted for the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill has expired.

Remainder of the Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Enderby) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-This is a most important -

Mr Daly:

– I move: ‘That the question be now put’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion is out of order.

Dr EDWARDS:

-This is a most important measure in which there are 27 schedules and some 29 clauses which the Opposition side of the House wished to consider in Committee. There is no subject more intimately related to the provision of meaningful, gainful employment for Australians than the tariff. Mr Bentley and Professor Blandy of the Flinders University were reported in the Press only yesterday as stating:

In the past year Australia appears to have fared worse in terms of unemployment increases than any other economically advanced country.

That has resulted from, among other things, the tariff policies of this Government. A little over 12 months ago, in September 1974, there were those who warned the Prime Minister and the

Government of the effects of their policy on unemployment. What was the Prime Minister’s reply? He said they were nervous Nellies. Worse, he said they were pedlars of lies.

Mr McLeay:

-Who said that?

Dr EDWARDS:

– The Prime Minister. Can you think of a better case of the pot calling the kettle black? Pedlars of lies, he called them. At that time the latest official unemployment figure stood at 100 000. Today the seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment is 300 000. So who was right in those circumstances? What is the difficulty and what is summed up in these schedules is a series of changes of thrust by the Government- first this way, then that way, reversing this and reversing that- until businessmen do not know where they stand. One of the cases which I know my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) was anxious to discuss is that of the motor industry. Firstly, the rate of duty on imported motor vehicles was slashed. The rate stood at 45 per cent. It was slashed by 25 per cent to 33 per cent. Then it was set at 35 per cent. A primage duty of 10 per cent, when added in terms of this Bill, increases it to 45 per cent. In addition direct import restrictions are imposed. The whole difficulty is that business does not know where it is going with this Government.

Mr Street:

– It is going down the drain.

Dr EDWARDS:

– As my colleague says, it is going down the drain as the Government moves first this way and then that way. What underlies these measures? It is the socialist, centralist ideology of this Government, the attempt to cut back activity in the private sector to make way for a ballooning Government. We see the results of its policies implemented through measures such as the Bill before the House at the moment and other measures in an increase over last year in employment in the government sector of no fewer than 93 000 persons. In the nongovernment sector, in Australia businesses large and small, we see a reduction in employment of 150 000. In the manufacturing sector- the sector most directly affected by the measures before the House- the reduction in employment is 1 34 000.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the third reading has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2753

ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 September on motion by Mr Les Johnson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill and the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Les Johnson)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Wentworth speaking for a period not exceeding 60 minutes.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-These measures, particularly the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill, contain provisions which are of tremendous significance. These Bills are probably more momentous in a way than any other measures that have been before this Parliament this year. The Government has been talking about them for some time. It has had the report of Mr Justice Woodward of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission since April 1974. As I understand it, this Bill is an attempt to enact into law the recommendations of the Woodward Commission. We on this side of the House support a measure which will give land rights to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. But in whatever form it becomes law, the provisions of the Bill will reach into the future in a very significant way. Therefore it is of tremendous importance not only to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory but also to the Australian people as a whole, and particularly those who live in the Northern Territory, that this measure be as wise and as effective as we can possibly make it. It should receive careful, detailed attention.

We have in this House a Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I understand that the

Committee has attracted the support and the commendation of honourable members for many years. That Committee has not had this Bill before it. It has not reported on it. It has not seen it at all. Unless what I am proposing to move on behalf of the Opposition is passed, the expertise that is within this House will not be available to us in the debate on this Bill. I believe that that is a great misfortune. The first reading of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill occurred in this House on 30 September, and the first reading of the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill occurred a little over a fortnight ago. In the second reading speeches on each occasion the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) indicated that the Government would allow these Bills to remain on the table so that interested parties, including of course the Aboriginal people, could make representations in relation to them. It is a very unfortunate fact that these Bills are being brought on for debate without the opportunity which the Government promised would take place. In other words, the Government has broken its promise to the Aboriginal people as well as to the other people in the Northern Territory. There has been no real time for representations to be made.

Bodies such as the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council may well have been consulted in relation to these Bills. I do not know. But the fact is that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- an important body, may I suggestand also the Aboriginal community councils of the Northern Territory have not had this Bill before them until recently. So the opportunity for consideration and representations has not been given. Let me cite what the Minister said in his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill. He said:

It is the Government’s intention, therefore, that, as with the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill, a further debate on this Bill will not occur until there has been adequate time for the Bill to be examined by all who will be affected by it I will be taking whatever action is necessary in the next few months to ensure that the Bill is explained to and understood by the Aboriginal community, and that the community’s views on its provisions are taken account of in the later stages of debate.

In his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill the Minister said:

It is therefore intended, as with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, that the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill should not proceed immediately through the second and third readings but lie before the House until a later date so that any representations may be taken into account before the House votes on the legislation. In this way, I believe, the Bill will, when passed, represent a coming together both of Aboriginal wishes and of the interests of other sections of the community.

I recall that the Minister went on to express the view that we might operate on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. Unfortunately, Aboriginal communities have not had the opportunity to make representations nor have the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and other interested parties.

Last week, when I discovered that these measures were to be brought on for debate, I sent telegrams to the various Aboriginal communities and other interested bodies in the Northern Territory. Bodies such as the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, the Aboriginal Legal Service in Alice Springs and the Northern Land Council, a body which has been set up in advance of this measure, replied indicating that they want the Bill to go through. They of course have probably had it for some time and therefore feel that they are in sufficient charge of its provisions to understand its ramifications. However, other Aboriginal groups have not been so circumspect about the BUI. For instance, I have a long telegram from Mr Andrews, President of the Bagot community at Darwin. He makes a number of comments on the measure. The Docker River Council sent me this telegram:

The Docker River Council men could not convey their ideas and beliefs easily in a telegram so unless you can visit here prior to a debate they wish that great care be had in ensuring that Aboriginal groups be involved in the entire planning and implementation of such Bills.

The President of the Numbulwar Town Council said:

Thanks telegram. Only received copy of Councils and Associations Bill yesterday. No copy received of land Bill but trying to obtain one from Aboriginal Affairs Darwin. Will send you telegram with any comments as soon as possible.

The Naugiu Shire Council stated:

Our letter of objections to the Bill will be coming to you in Mondays mail.

That is yesterday. I have not received it yet. Jambana Lalara President of the Angurugu outpost, Darwin, stated:

Received copy of Aboriginal Council Bill today with letter from Minister of Aboriginal Affairs saying he required comment by mid-November. Have not seen copy of Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill. Council upset. Believe it has right for full discussions before Acts are passed. Please help us by sending all Bills.

So there we have the attitudes of some of the Aboriginal communities. I read those not to embarrass the Minister but simply to indicate to the House the seriousness of going ahead without a proper opportunity to take into account the representations of the various communities. These are not simple measures; they are very complex. Those of us who have had anything to do with Aboriginal communities will know the difficulties involved in explaining the nature of measures and the sorts of consultations that have to take place before they understand our legal forms and the time that has to be spent in doing this. I do not know completely why the Government wishes to bring on this legislation now. I assume it is because it still has in the back of its mind that there might be a half Senate election before Christmas. I regret very much that these Bills should be caught up in such a thought if that is the thought. It is the only reason I can find for these matters being brought on for debate before those promises are carried into effect- not our promises but the Minister’s promises, the Government’s promises. I think the Minister and the Government ought to think seriously before they allow this debate to continue without those representations being made. Another important body, as I have already mentioned, is the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Recently the Legislative Assembly, which had not been consulted in relation to the terms of the Aboriginal Lands (Northern Territory) Bill passed this motion:

That this Assembly is of the opinion that the passage of the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975 at present before the federal Parliament should be delayed until at least the last week in November to allow the people of the Northern Territory to express their views on it.

A delegation was set up under the resolution for the purpose of conveying to the Government the views of the Assembly and of the people of the Northern Territory on this matter. The delegation was appointed to attend upon Ministers of the Federal Government for that purpose. The importance and significance of the Legislative Assembly hardly needs mentioning. One can imagine that it ought to have its views expressed in relation to a matter of perhaps relative insignificance but here we are dealing with a measure which potentially affects the whole of the Northern Territory where there are Crown lands. As at a recent date claims which totalled 300 689 square kilometres had been made in relation to Aboriginal lands and that included 243 970 square kilometres which are contained within Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory. That is to say, 23 per cent of the Northern Territory is subject to claim under these Bills and particularly the land rights Bill. As I understand it, that was at 9 September.

It may well be that there are claims which are either made or nascent in existence or existing in the minds of people or Aboriginal groups which could still be made which could well exceed 23 per cent of the total area of the Northern Territory. Is it too much to think that in those circumstances we in this Parliament should take into account the views of the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory? It is too much to think that they will have something to say, that not just appointed representatives but the elected representatives of the people of the Northern Territory might have a right to voice their attitudes to these measures before they are passed into law through this House? Surely it is a reasonable suggestion to make yet I understand that the Government is going to ignore the Legislative Assembly.

One of the aspects of this question is that at some time in the future, be it close or distant- it will not matter for these purposes because as I said earlier these Bills will have long term effectthe Northern Territory, although it be anathema to the Government, will probably be a State of the Commonwealth and those who are now the elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly may well be members of a State parliament but certainly their successors will be and the statehood and the effect of these provisions on the statehood of the Northern Territory are very material matters to take into consideration in this debate. I repeat that at least 23 per cent of the Northern Territory could be affected by this legislation. Our attitude in these circumstances is simply contained in a motion which I propose to move later, namely:

That each of these Bills be .referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to receive representations on them from the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory and other interested persons and organisations in the Northern Territory and to report to the House on the nature and content of such representations.

The Opposition is not seeking another Woodward Commission but we believe that we ought to have available to us in a proper form the representations of those who wish to make them. There are many people who would wish to make them- not only the Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal people, not only the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, but also the townspeople, the various groups, the fisherman’s co-operative. For all I know the Department of Northern Australia itself may wish to say something upon this measure. The officers of that Department may have representations to make as to the effect of this Bill on the Northern Territory itself. For that purpose and against the background of what I have already said I propose to move that motion on behalf of the Opposition. We believe it is vital that the views of these people be known. Later I will develop the reason why.

The Opposition accepts the principle that the title of traditional Aboriginal owners to land within the reserves ought to be recognised. There are of course other principles which are apposite in circumstances such as this where Aboriginal people are obtaining title to land. For instance, they must be provided with expertise and funds, by loans or grant, to assist them to develop their lands where development is economically viable. It is important that they be provided with appropriate health, education and housing services in the areas in which they are living. It is also vital that employment opportunities for Aboriginal people should be encouraged on settlements and elsewhere on their lands. I want to make it quite clear that the Opposition agrees in principle with the proposition that those lands on the reserve should be held for the benefit of the Aboriginal people.

Undoubtedly there are reasons why lands in the Northern Territory outside the reserves might also in certain circumstances be held for Aboriginal people, for the traditional owners. Wave Hill is such an example. But at the same time the Bill is of such magnitude in its implications and so uncertain in its operation that it lays down no specific particulars, no grounds and no principles by which it is to operate in relation to land outside the reserves in the Northern Territory. Therefore, the Opposition regards it of great significance that very careful consideration be given before this legislation is finally passed so that it may go out of this Parliament in such a form that those who implement it will know the wish, the will and the wisdom of the Parliament and will also know the criteria which are to be applied in the operation of the Bill in the various areas of the Northern Territory.

Clearly enough the circumstances in which traditional owners should be entitled to lands off the reserves may need greater definition than the Bill provides. Again the question that inevitably comes up is the question of the rights of existing holders of interest in Crown lands off reserves. That is a matter of tremendous significance. A question arises as to the use of the power of resumption to obtain lands for Aboriginal people off reserves. The question arises as to whether any test of economic viability ought to be applied in acquiring land in the Northern Territory for the Aboriginal people off reserves. I have already mentioned the fact that 23 per cent of the Northern Territory is already affected. That is of tremendous importance when one is considering a Crown land policy in the Northern Territory. One cannot consider this problem in a vacuum. One cannot consider it without taking into account the future of the Northern Territory in the whole Australian complex, in the Australian federation. One cannot look at it in any way other than against the total picture.

In its present form, because it lays down no criteria really upon which lands outside the reserves will be dealt with, this Bill does not really come to grips with those basic questions. Until it does, or until we send from this Parliament a Bill which does, we will not do justice to the future. It will not bring harmony, as Mr Justice Woodward said in his report, between the Aboriginal community and the rest of the community. I remind honourable members that one of the principles which he stated was the promotion of social harmony and stability within the wider Australian community by removing, so far as possible, the legitimate causes of complaint of an important minority group within that community. If this measure becomes law without taking into account the relationship between the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and others in the Northern Territory, its social effect and the effect of large areas of land being passed over without the operation of a test of economic viability, it may lead not to social harmony but to social disharmony. If the wisdom of this Parliament is that that should be done, well and good, but my concern, and the concern of the Opposition, is that before we take that step, if we take it, we should give it very careful thought and should take into account the views of all those who have real interest in this matter.

Other matters obviously are important. The rights of traditional owners to decide what should happen on their lands is a matter of great significance. Time passes quickly these days, but as recently as July I visited the Northern Territory and went to a number of communities. One of the things which struck me, because I was aware of the possibility of this legislation containing the concept of large land councils, was the desire of traditional owners to say what was going to happen on their land; that is to say, people of a particular community- I will not name them because I do not think I should do so- in some part of the Northern Territory would say: ‘We want the right to say what happens to our land. We do not want a remote land council to tell us what to do’. We know that this legislation provides for 2 land councils, one in the north and one in the south. As I will demonstrate later, those land councils will exercise tremendous power. The traditional communities in the Northern Territory which I visited- I think only one did not have a firm view on the matterexpressed the attitude that they did not want to be dictated to by a remote land council. In other words, it was just a simple proposition- ‘If we own the land, if we have the right to the land, we want to say what is going to be done to it and we want to say how it is to be used ‘.

Another matter which struck me was that the Aboriginal groups to which I spoke and with whom I sat- sometimes I sat with them for a couple of hours and then came back and spoke to them about it- were emphatic that they wanted to say who came on to their land. They did not want a remote land council telling them what to do and who was to enter their land. As far as I could understand the matter, they also wanted the right to say whether a person should come on, whether that person was an Aboriginal or not. In other words they drew no distinction between the Aboriginal and the non-Aboriginal person. So if a person did not live at a particular community, was not born there, did not have relatives there or did not have land there and wanted to go there, they would expect him to get permission. All this of course is perhaps rather obvious if one knows anything about Aboriginal land associations, because their association with the land emphasis their desire to say what shall happen to it, not only in relation to its sacred significance but also in relation to what will happen to it in terms of the twentieth century, that is, in terms of economic activity and operations on the land. So this is another question that arises for consideration. The Bill itself is not consonant with that at all. The Bill would give to the distant land council the right to say who could come on to the land. The Bill would give to the distant land council the ultimate decision as to what was to happen to the land and how it was to be used, and the land council could direct land trusts in relation thereto.

True it is that the distant land council must not come to a decision until it has consulted with the local traditional owners of the land and is satisfied that they do not oppose the proposal; but let us come to that in a moment. The fact is that this Bill puts other bodies, which are quite foreign to and distant from the Aboriginal people, before them and inevitably they will become bureaucracies. How will those bodies stand alongside the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? I wonder myself when I think about it quietly. I wonder how the Department and the bodies will get on in years to come if the bodies do come into existence. As I see it at the moment, these bodies will have to have considerable expertise attached to them. They will have that degree of staff employed necessary to service the various local communities. If this measure goes through the result will be that Aboriginal bureaucracies will be growing up in 2 parts of the Northern Territory.

My consultations with Aboriginal people I have met lead me to think that they would not feel happy about these distant land councils. I understand that already in Arnhem Land there is a proposal to set up a smaller land council called the East Arnhem Land Council. I do not know what particular area it will cover, but that is the proposal. In other words that expresses the attitude of the people in east Arnhem to the distant and large land councils that this Bill and the Woodward Commission propose. My point is not to debate that question finally and irrevocably here but simply to bring to the surface the fact that this is a real question which we need to look at as legislators. It is a question about which we ought not to simply accept- and I say this with the greatest respect- the decision of the Woodward Commission and upon which we ought to seek the assistance of the Aboriginal communities themselves. This is another reason why the matter should be referred to a committee in order to take representations from those interested.

Other matters are involved. One phrase which is of particular interest is ‘national interest’ in relation to mining interests. What does ‘national interest’ mean? The question arises: What does it mean to the Aboriginal people? If they do not understand what it means and we do not understand what it means we are heading for trouble. If the phrase stays in that form without definition we will end up in a situation where the Government of the day- and it will not always be this Government clearly enough- will be at odds with the Aboriginal people. If we leave that phrase there undefined and uninstructed we are leaving trouble not only for government and Parliament but also for the Aboriginal people. It is a source of problems and it is a matter that needs careful consideration. It is not only a problem to the Aboriginal people and to the Government but also it is a matter of concern to those who want to engage in mining ventures. Quite apart, the mining aspect of this law needs broad consideration against the background of the development of the Northern Territory as a whole and the development of Australia as a whole.

Those of us who sympathise very much with the claims for Aboriginal land rights naturally feel that the Aboriginal people should have the right to say whether mining ventures should be conducted on their land. But there is another side to this question, undoubtedly, and that is not simply defined by talking about national interest.

There is another attitude, another view. That view ought to be considered in this Parliament if we are to look at the legislation on a bi-partisan basis. These, of course, are only some of the problems which need careful thought before we pass this legislation. I suggest we look at them on a bi-partisan basis and I believe that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has the greatest expertise to do so. It has a very fine chairman who all of us respect and the Committee itself has done great work, as I have already said, in the past. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why the promises of the Government should not be honoured and why some machinery such as this is not set up in order to take on board the views of various people.

It is important, of course, to bear in mind the nature of the Aboriginal land relationship. The decision of Mr Justice Blackburn in the Gove case makes it clear that the relationship cannot be expressed in terms of our laws. It is not in the nature of a proprietary right. The basic relationship is spiritual in nature and finds its origin in a firmly held and traditional belief that areas of land were given to particular groups by their mythological ancestors. It is a relationship which is inalienable. As a result these groups have a feeling of obligation to the land often expressed through ritual, mainly preformed at sacred sites and aimed partly at fructification and renewal of the fertility of the land. Mr Justice Blackburn, acknowledging the danger of generalisation, expressed the relationship by saying that the clan belongs to the land rather the land belongs to the clan. When translated into our language the Aboriginal speaks of sites, and areas of land and uses words such as ‘my country’ or ‘the land of such and such a group’. A group which has this relationship is broadly described as the clan. Accordingly, under the findings of Mr Justice Blackburn, it is made up of persons speaking a common language and having a common patrilineal descent, but the people who speak the same language may in fact be made up of people of different patrilineal descent and people of the same patrilineal descent may in fact speak different languages. This means that not all the people speaking the same language necessarily have a relationship with the same land nor do all the people of the same patrilineal descent.

The relationship, basically spiritual but basically related to a small group perhaps or a larger group, results as it were in a relationship which can, if expressed in twentieth century terms, be expressed in terms of ownership and of relationship with particular areas. As was found in the Gove case by Mr Justice Blackburn, although the Crown in that case argued otherwise, the boundaries of lands could be denned with a certain degree of particularity. It is important to have that relationship in mind when we come to consider the terms of the Bill. I have tried to summarise it in what I believe is the form in which Mr Justice Blackburn considered it in the Gove case. If we do not understand the Aboriginal relationship with land when we come to consider this Bill we may miss the point of some of its provisions. On the other hand, I want to suggest that if we do not have this understanding we will not be as critical of some of the provisions as we otherwise might be.

The Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill provides in Part II for an Aboriginal land commissioner. His functions are:

  1. to ascertain, and to report to the Minister on, the needs of Aboriginals, whether as individuals or communities, for land in the Northern Territory to be used for residential, employment or other purposes;
  2. to ascertain, and to report to the Minister on, the availability of land to satisfy the needs referred to in paragraph (a).

There are other functions which the Commissioner has. It is interesting to note that they are not confined to Northern Territory Aborigines. I wonder whether the Northern Territory Aboriginal people understand that. Do they understand that this could be a means whereby Aborigines in other parts of Australia could obtain title or rights to land in the Northern Territory? I am not suggesting that it should be exclusive necessarily; all I am asking is whether the people there realise it. Do they understand it? Do they know that it could be used for this purpose? Do they understand that people of the Torres Strait Islands for instance could gain rights to land in the Northern Territory? If they do, well and good; but if they do not and they come to know it, would they object to it? Would they want to make some representation about it?

Another point that comes out of this particular Part is that the Land Commissioner himself is not given any particular procedures to follow. True it is, he has the power to require people to come before him if he is a judge and to answer questions and produce documents. He has the power to swear people, to take evidence on oath and the like. But there are no requirements of a procedural nature even to ensure basic natural justice in the implementation of inquiries by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. I comment on that only as something that ought to be considered in the ultimate consideration of this particular legislation. The Aboriginal Land Commissioner himself has been operating already. There is nothing which makes his advice- I am not suggesting that there should be; I am merely commenting- mandatory on the Minister. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Bill which requires him to give a report before the Minister acts on other matters. For instance under clauses 46, 47 or 56, the Minister can make grants. But there appears to be nothing which requires the Minister to get the view of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner before those steps are taken.

The next Part relates to Aboriginal Land Councils. I have already referred to the fact that there are 2 large councils contemplated by this Bill- the Northern Council and the Central Council. I have already expressed the possibility that these may grow into 2 large Aboriginal bureaucracies alongside the already existing bureaucracy of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Whether they will overlap, whether they will intrude into one another, whether they will look over one another’s shoulders, I do not know; but I sense the possibility at least of it happening. There is provision for having a smaller land council. But what this Part really raises is the real question of whether ultimately it is advisable to have 2 large councils or whether it would not be a much better proposal to have land councils appropriate to particular communities.

Because I was in the Gove case I should like to refer to the Yirrkala community which I came to know reasonably well in that case. There are three groups of people who have been living together for a long time. They are land owning groups- I think ten or eleven of them; there may be fewer or more. But the fact is that by and large they have been able to solve their problems together. When Mungaravi wanted to go down and gather some firewood on Roy Didanya’s land further south towards Caledon Bay or Port Bradshaw or whatever it was, Roy refused him permission. But Mungaravi did not get upset about it, because they have been living together there for a long time. They had been used between them to solving these problems of permission to go on one another’s land together and hunting on one another’s land, etc. They were able to work out an arrangement with the Nabalco company over the period prior to 1970. With the assistance of the mission they have been able to put a township there, where they live in apparent peace and harmony. In other words, there appears to be- and I believe there to be- a relatively cohesive community. There, I would suggest, is a strong argument for the existence of a unit for a land council. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will say to me that this was all canvassed in the Woodward report. Maybe it was, and maybe Mr Justice Woodward did look into the matter and come to a different view. But the fact is that this is the Australian Parliament and I personally, and we in the Opposition, would like this matter to be ventilated here and the arguments debated and considered before we take this extremely important step. This would apply not only to Yirrkala, but I venture to say it would apply also to Elcho Island which I have visited. It would apply to Milingimbi, which I have not visited and perhaps to Oenpelli. I do not know enough about the matter but I suggest that right through the Northern Territory there are communities of Aboriginal people who have been living together, people who own the land in the traditional sense around about the community, who would be able to solve the problems of user of the land and also the problems of permits on to the land if they were given the task to do so. This could be done without any paid man except perhaps a community adviser. All this could be done without bureaucracy eating up the funds that will come from mining royalties. All this could be done without the heartache of new structures, new organisations established alongside the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. So I suggest to honourable members that there is a very serious problem involved here and one to which we will not do justice if we simply allow this Bill to pass through this Parliament without very careful and further consideration. When I say that, I speak simply as a person who may be new to Aboriginal affairs. My association is recent, but I speak to others like the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) who has had years of experience. I know that others opposite have had years of experience. I know, and I believe, that this type of consideration is a matter of great moment to all of us and we ought not to be rushing ahead with it like this.

There are of course other matters such as the land trusts. The whole of Arnhem Land, the mainland, is to go into one land trust. True, the land trust will consist of Aboriginal people, but the land trust is not coincidental with ownership. There might be literally thousands of traditional clan groups over the Northern Territory which own the land, but the fact is that the land trusts that are going to be set up will bridge many traditional ownership groups. So there is no relationship whatever between the land title- the ownership- and the actual ownership. If we get a title to land, if we own land, we expect to get title in our own name as owner.

Mr Hunt:

– In our own right.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– That is fair enough. If it is our land, we want title to it. Why should not the Aboriginal people get title? Why should not somebody close to the traditional Aboriginal owner get the title? I cannot understand the position. I have never been able to understand this aspect of the Woodward report. I had to read it several times to get myself to realise that that is what the report really meant: That people remote from the actual owner should have the title in their names. So the concept of land trusts is also out of step with the grass roots situation. I believe that these things need consideration, representation and report. Maybe the Aboriginal communities can tell me why it ought to be so, if that is what they believe and that is what they want. But I must say that as I have spoken to them wherever I have found them, and through my association with the Gove case, I have come to two very clear decisions. The Aboriginal people who own the land want to say what is to happen to it and who is going to come onto it, whether they are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. Of course we know that according to clause 73 of this Bill any Aboriginal person can go on to these lands in the Northern Territory. That is the intention of the Bill. I know it is what Mr Justice Woodward recommended. But that does not appear to be the view of the Aboriginal people to whom one speaks in the Northern Territory.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Which ones are they?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Does the Minister really want me to say?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have spoken to many.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I have spoken to the people of Yirrkala and Elcho Island. I have spoken to the council at Yirrkala and the council at Elcho Island. I have also spoken to the council at Haasts Bluff. I could not go to every community in the Northern Territory, and it is like putting one’s finger into the water to take the temperature, but wherever I went I found the people saying this. When I cross-examined Aboriginals in the land rights case I got the same impression coming back to me. When I went back this year to see these people all I found was that they were telling me what I already knew because I had cross-examined them. I cannot understand why this Bill and why the Woodward Commission are saying these things. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me, to other members on this side of the House and perhaps to some Government supporters. We just cannot understand why the

Aboriginal people tell us that when we talk to them.

The same experience was found in Queensland when we were discussing the Bill related to that State. If one talks to the people on the Aboriginal reserves in Queensland they will say the same thing. That Bill was amended last year in order to ensure that councils would have the right to say who would go onto their land. That Bill was amended by agreement in the Senate after weeks and weeks of heartache over it. We endorsed the principle that the local councils on reserves in Queensland would have the right to say who came onto their land, be they Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. Let us see what Mr Andrews, the President of the Bagot Community, says. He said: . . . Minister in second reading speech refers to Aboriginal ownership of all Northern Territory Aboriginal reserve. Request immediate advice on position relation to Bagot Also Bagot people not in agreement with granting of power to issue or cancel permit to land councils. Would prefer retain own authority re permit to enter Bagot. Executive also believe distribution of moneys.

That is just one person expressing the view of his community council. He believes that the Aboriginal people there want the right to say who goes onto their land. He does not refer to Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal people but I would suggest that if we spoke to htm he would probably tell us that he would make no distinction but that he would want to say who goes onto the land. I say this not for the purpose of driving any wedge between Aboriginal people but because I honestly believe it to be the attitude of the Aboriginal people. Therefore I suggest it is a matter of grave concern and something we need to look at closely.

There is another slightly different aspect of this Bill. It will be remembered that Mr Justice Woodward reported that at least 2 kilometres of the sea should be part of the title to the land. The Government has not adopted that recommendation but has used another method of achieving the same result. Clause 74, in part, states: . . . where Aboriginal land adjoins the territorial sea, or internal waters of Australia, appertaining to the Northern Territory, that part of the territorial sea or internal waters so appertaining that is within 2 kilometres of the boundary of the Aboriginal land shall, for the purposes of section 73, be deemed to be part of that Aboriginal land.

So a person cannot enter that area unless he has a permit. That is the effect of clause 74 in relation to waters. This could have some curious effects. For instance, internal waters would include rivers. It would include the Daly River, East Alligator River and Roper River, all of which happen to be boundaries of reserves. At the moment

I understand that all of these rivers are used by towns people as well as Aboriginal people. The effect of clause 74 is to deprive those people who have been using those rivers of the right to fish there, to picnic there or to go boating thereactivities in which they have been engaging for a long time. It may be said that that is a side effect, an inconsequential effect perhaps, but I suggest that it would not be inconsequential to the people who have been doing these things for a long time, nor would it be a matter not likely to cause concern.

It is interesting in relation to clause 74, that Mr Andrews of the Bagot Community Council, said:

Executive cannot agree that section 74 is necessary or desirable and have no wish to penalise any sections of wider community.

What is he saying? He is saying: Why should the people generally be excluded from the beaches, from the seafront? We know that reserves in the Northern Territory abut the coastline for hundreds of miles. If one takes into account those areas one finds that the whole coastline for hundreds of miles would be taken up either by reserves or by vacant Crown land which could be made the subject of grants to the Aboriginal people. This land would then be subject to this restriction of entry over 2 kilometres of the sea. I simply suggest that this is a matter that could give rise to considerable concern. True it is that the Aboriginal people ought to be entitled to be free from interference with their traditional fishing rights and the like, but if this provision remains people will be excluded from the areas. The owners of boats that go into such areas will have to prove that they were blown in there. All sorts of things will happen. People will be excluded from beaches from which they otherwise would not have been excluded. They will be excluded from rivers from which they otherwise would not have been excluded. This is a question that needs resolution between the people who are non-Aboriginal and the Aboriginal people. There has to be harmony as a result of this Bill and all I am saying is that this is another matter for consideration- another problem.

I have not mentioned, for instance, the right of innocent passage. I know that clause 74 states:

This section has effect subject to the obligations of Australia under international law, including obligations under any agreement between Australia and another country or countries.

But how does the right of innocent passage operate? Is that an exception from clause 74? If it is, why not say so? We have an obligation under international law- under the territorial sea conventionto give the right of innocent passage. All this, as I say, only points to the fact that from one end of this Bill to the other we find the problem of whether particular provisions are going to lead to problems with the Aboriginal people themselves, whether they have had the consideration of the non-Aboriginal community, whether they are going to lead to disharmony, or whether we are going to find a situation where a BUI is brought into law which will cause problems, trouble, havoc and increased bureaucracy of a nature that was never intended. My purpose is not to incite any fear. My purpose is not to do that at all. It is simply to emphasise the fact that legislation of such tremendous importance ought not to be rushed through this Parliament. It ought to go to a committee of this House- a bipartisan committee- so that it can look at it, consider it and give it its urgent and careful attention in the light of representations that are made.

My time in this debate is almost up. There are other provisions which I would like to have referred to, for instance the provisions in the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill. I have some problems with them. I think that part of the Bill relating to the Councils should be restricted to the Northern Territory. I think that if the provisions are ever extended outside the Northern Territory the Bill is bound to end in trouble because there will be Aboriginal local government councils operating in Queensland. They will be operating in New South Wales and they will be operating in already existing local government areas, and that spells trouble. I suggest to the Minister that that part of the Bill be confined to the Northern Territory. I also suggest that it would be very worth while confining the powers of the Registrar. He seems to be a very significant person. Under this legislation he will exercise tremendous powers over Aboriginal people. He would either have to be a man of considerable expertise or alternatively a person who should not have the powers stated in the Bill. In relation to the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill and the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill I move as an amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs:

to receive representations on the Bill from the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory and other interested persons and organisations in the Northern Territory, and

to report to the House on the nature and content of such representations’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Calder:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) on his long and thoughtful speech, most of which was devoted to the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975. Honourable members on this side of the House share his regret that these Bills and more particularly the Aboriginal Land Bill and the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill have been brought down but from our side of the House we point out that this action was not what we would have chosen. The timetable for this year has been altered by the actions of the Opposition in threatening to refuse Supply in another place. All honourable members know that according to the proposed timetable last week and this week were to have been weeks when we should have been back in our electorates and when committees of this House could have been studying matters such as this. The Government has been obliged to change its legislative program.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) sent out, as I understand it, 1000 letters with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill and he has also sent out documents on the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill in the hope that there would be sufficient time for replies to be received and to be studied but unfortunately there was not enough time. The honourable member for Wentworth rightly pointed out the importance of the land legislation which breaks new grounds in this country. On behalf of the Government I welcome his statement that the Opposition recognises and supports Aboriginal land rights in principle. I also welcome the recurrent theme throughout his speech that the wishes of Aboriginal people should wherever possible be taken into account. Time and time throughout his speech he made that point and of course there would be no argument about that from this side of the House. It is a point well taken.

In this cognate debate on 3 Bills I will deal very briefly with the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill. This Bill makes modest increases in the amount of money to be made available to the States. There is an increase of $3.7m this year as against the previous year and in direct grants to Aboriginal organisations there is an increase of some S5m this year as against the previous year. Given the level of inflation in the community these grants provide much the same level of assistance as was provided the previous year. There are increases in some areas. It is hard to make comparisons because obviously the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has changed its system of classification of the assistance which it is giving. One notes, for example, a substantial decrease in money for Aboriginal employment in the Northern Territory and an enormous increase in money being made available for town management and public utilities- a new heading. So one presumes that in the light of experience the Department is upgrading its classifications.

I would like to congratulate the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Department on the obviously improved administrative capacity in recent times. I regret the staff ceilings which are imposed on all government departments because this bites rather hard on a department such as the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which in recent times has had to accept massive new responsibilities. As the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs moves around the country and as I am sure honourable members do in their own electorates one regrets that the Department has as yet been unable to establish in many areas an effective regional presence. I am not attaching any blame to anyone for that. I merely record that it happens. The present staff ceilings and the present restraints do not help that position. In my view so much of the money which is spent through special works programs and through assistance to Aboriginal organisations could be more effectively spent and those organisations could be more effectively advised on how to spend that money if there were a more effective regional presence by the Department. I know that is a matter very dear to the Minister’s heart.

Another Bill before us, the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, recognises a problem that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and former Ministers who held this portfolio have had since about 1968, and that is to provide a simple way of incorporating Aboriginal communities. Under this legislation, which also breaks new ground, groups will be able to incorporate for a greater number of purposes than under previous legislation. They can include Aboriginal customs in the rules of their association. There are 2 separate forms of corporate body spelt out in the Bill- Aboriginal Councils and Aboriginal Associations. Aboriginal councils are geographically based bodies and broadly speaking the equivalent of local government bodies under State laws. This part of the Bill supplements the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill. In other words, it sets up the framework whereby an Aboriginal local government structure can be set under way in the Northern Territory.

The second form of corporate body recognised in the Bill is Aboriginal Associations. These may be formed for any legal purpose including the running of a business. The Bill will also establish a Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations who will maintain registers of Aboriginal councils and incorporated Aboriginal Associations. The Registrar also will assist and advise Aboriginal groups and communities and provide help and training to them. The purpose of this legislation is to recognise and set out in a somewhat simpler form than applies in the existing State laws the fact that Aborigines do not have the sophistication and business experience to comply with many of the complex and technical requirements of State laws. This legislation should prove a very useful step forward in assisting Aborigines to incorporate. It has relevance not only to the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill but also to other legislation. The Aboriginal Lands Commission will follow the Aboriginal Capital Fund established by the former Government. It also will benefit the Aboriginal communities which are able to incorporate in the way that this Bill sets out.

I want to come back to the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975 to which the honourable member for Wentworth devoted much of his speech. Labor Party policy is to give land to 2 distinct groups of Aboriginal people. On reserves traditional land ownership is recognised. Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, and one thinks for example of Wattie Creek which is outside a reserve, the existence of stable Aboriginal communities is recognised. Those Aboriginal communities need not necessarily be communities with a traditional association. I think I also should point out that the existing tenure on reserves is not secure. The fact that vast areas of the Northern Territory are Aboriginal reserves results from decisions made by the GovernorGeneral in Council, by the Executive Council. Most of those reserves were set up in the early 1930s.

I think it is fair to say that until recent years Aboriginal people who lived on these reserves never had the ownership of their land in doubt. They quite sincerely and genuinely believed that they owned the land. They knew, for example, that at times policemen would come in to apprehend lawbreakers; they went through the experience of the Second World War when defence establishments were set up in many part of Aboriginal reserves, in Arnhem Land and elsewhere in the Northern Territory. But people went there for a particular purpose. Maybe, as in the case of defence, people were there for a substantial time but then they went away. Aboriginal land ownership was not in doubt.

In recent years we have seen the development of mining. The development that most of us have had a particular interest in is that on the Gove Peninsula where there are vast bauxite deposits. Aboriginal people were confronted for the first time with the presence of outsiders which would be permanent and which would change the landscape for all time. Aboriginal land would never be the same again and no Aboriginal who lived there could honestly believe that he owned that land. The vast enterprises on areas that had been stripped of bauxite and perhaps were being rehabilitated, the presence of conveyor belts and other plant and the vast industrial enterprise that has been established there, together with all the other equipment and roads, are all an affront to Aboriginal ownership.

This Bill breaks completely new ground and no doubt it will be found that there are imperfections in it. The Labor Party’s Aboriginal Affairs Committee has gone through the Bill very carefully with officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister and his staff and we turned over many of these questions in our own minds. I think it is fair to say that some of these matters will be resolved only by experience. Unlike New Zealand which has an experience in Maori land laws going back many decades, or perhaps a hundred years, this legislation breaks new ground. It does so very largely because although all States except Queensland have accepted Aboriginal land rights in some way, the Northern Territory has the overwhelming number of traditionally oriented people and for them land rights are very much a different matter. They are a matter of life and death. They are quite different from the land rights of Aborigines in a community like Cherbourg, near Brisbane, for example- and I do not denigrate in any way the right of the people of Cherbourg to own their own land.

This Bill is to be part of our law and as such is alien to much of Aboriginal tradition and culture. I think that point is well made. We are trying to do something quite new. There are 2 things that worry me and one of them is the complexity of the Bill. I note that the Minister for Aboriginal

Affairs circulated a statement which explains in fairly simple terms to Aboriginal communities what the Bill is about. I found as a non-legal person the Bill a tremendously complex piece of legislation. This is a matter of regret and I am told by the legal people that it is impossible to write a simple Bill to cater for a problem as complex as Aboriginal land rights. It is a pity that the Bill is so complex.

The other point that worries me is that given the way in which the proposed new system is formalised in the Bill I am concerned that in some Aboriginal eyes we may be giving them something less than they expect. In other words, until a comparatively few years ago their right to own their traditional land was not in doubt but in this legislation we are giving them a complex system. They will be obliged to go through a system of Land Trusts and Land Councils. However, I do not know what else can be done. The Bill very clearly spells out that all these people comprising the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, the Land Councils and the Land Trusts are required to respect the wishes of the traditional owners. It is very difficult to be explicit about these things because the wishes of the owners of Aboriginal land, not all of them traditional owners, will vary a great deal.

I listened with interest to the honourable member for Wentworth talking about the views of the Bagot community on access to the beach. I thought how unrepresentative that view would be of a number of other Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Those are problems that can be met only by a Land Council that is close to the people in a very real way. There are some matters that are going to be worked out by experience. One is the question of land use where Land Councils are required to respect the wishes of traditional owners. The question of permits is a complex one. The law provides that the permits will be issued by the Land Council but it can delegate. Obviously in a place like Bagot it would be quite possible to delegate authority to some person or group of persons at Bagot to make the decision.

On the other hand, if we consider isolated communities well away from Darwin or Alice Springs, the Land Councils should be able to understand the wishes of the land-owning group, the circumstances in which it would be prepared to issue or reject permits. The legislation very clearly places on Land Councils the obligation to take those wishes into account. In a case like Yirrkala where the actual demand for permits to enter the reserve comes almost exclusively from people who live in Nhulunbuy, to issue permits in Darwin would be complete nonsense except in the case of people who wish to come from Darwin. In a case like that obviously the Aboriginal Land Council would delegate the right to issue permits to the local Aboriginal Council at Yirrkala which might presumably establish some representation in Nhulunbuy for that purpose.

The other matter of concern relates to royalties and other payments. Land Councils are to be required to keep maps and records of traditional land ownership. From our own experience I think we all know that the traditional land owners find very little dispute as to the boundaries of the various land owning clans. But in the actual practical exercise of who gets royalty for gravel or granite taken from a particular place, or timber cut from a particular place, that is something that will have to be worked out by experience.

I emphasise that the legislation places a responsibility on land councils that they must remain close to the people, that they must not become an isolated bureaucracy in Darwin, Alice Springs or wherever a land council, at the Minister’s discretion, might be established. The Aboriginal Land Commissioner has a great deal of flexibility in his operation. The honourable member for Wentworth pointed out that no guidelines were spelt out for him in the Bill. Essentially, of course, he recommends to the Minister. This has been deliberately done to give him a great deal of flexibility because again he breaks new ground in what he would be required to do.

The legislation reserves to the Minister consent and approval for many of these matters in respect of title, boundaries to land councils and the like. I think that is only proper because the Minister represents the Parliament and he will, I know, be watching the future progress of this legislation and the organisations set up under it with great interest and care. Given the fact that this legislation breaks new ground, there must be continued scrutiny on behalf of the Minister and a flexible attitude on behalf of the Parliament to alter this legislation as may be necessary in the future in the light of experience to serve the needs of Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

I make the point again that it is sad that we are obliged to proceed with this legislation rather more quickly than the Government would have hoped. There is no doubt that there will be imperfections in the Bill but I do not doubt for one minute that the legislation is as good as it could possibly be made by the dedication and hard work of those people in the Department and the advice that they sought from the land councils. I trust that in the future the Parliament will very frequently look at the working of this legislation with a view to making whatever changes might be necessary. I certainly know that that is the view of the Australian Labor Party. We hope that we are in this legislation setting up an effective instrument in the interests of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory and the. Aboriginal people of Australia. We hope that we are setting up the instrument which the States will copy in their own areas of responsibility.

This legislation has been a long time in the making. I believe that the Bills before us are epoch making. I support them with very great enthusiasm. I hope that it will be possible for us to pass them through both Houses of the Parliament as soon as possible because one thing that is certain is that the question of land rights is a test of the credibility of this Government and every government. It is something that the Aboriginal people are calling for above everything else.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The House is debating the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975, the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill 1975 and the State Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1975. 1 want to direct my attention principally to the latter of these 3 Bills. However, before doing so I want to refute the argument put forward by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) at the beginning of what was otherwise a thoughtful speech. I refer to the comment that the honourable member made in what was for him a very shabby and uncustomary manner when he tried to blame the Opposition’s decision to defer the Budget for certain problems with which the Government is now being confronted. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) on behalf of the Opposition has moved a motion to refer the legislation to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, of which the honourable member for Brisbane is the Chairman. The honourable member for Brisbane tried to excuse the refusal of the Minister to accept this amendment by saying that the Parliament has been sitting for the last fortnight. A few weeks ago at the end of September or in early October that same Minister made a promise to the House. In his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill he said:

It is the Government’s intention, therefore, that, as with the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill, further debate on this Bill will not occur until there has been adequate time for the Bill to be examined by all who will be affected by it I will be taking whatever action is necessary in the next few months to ensure that the Bill is explained to and understood by the Aboriginal community -

The amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth simply seeks that- time. A month ago the Minister saw the complications of the Bill to be such that he felt that some months should be given for it to be considered. But we all know what is motivating the Minister. Because the present Government is marking time in this chamber it is desperately reaching out and seeking legislation to keep the Parliament going even until 6 o’clock each evening. So it grabs these Aboriginal Bills and brings them in. That is the first point. The second point is that now the High Court of Australia has come down with a decision that the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory shall qualify for Senate representation the mastermind of the Australian Labor Party, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), has said to the Minister: ‘You had better get that into the House and get it through because there might be a few votes in the Northern Territory for us’. I see the honourable member for Brisbane breaking up. He cannot even look me in the eye because he knows the exact truth of what I have just said. And the Minister looks his usual sullen, unattractive self.

The State Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill proposes to spend in excess of $3 5m during the year 1975-76 to help alleviate the housing problem for Aboriginal people, which still remains. The Minister expressed the hope in his second reading speech that by 1982 we- and I speak of Australia as a nation when I say ‘we’- might have completed housing the Aboriginal people. In that speech the Minister commended members of all parties for the consideration of the legislation or of Aboriginal problems on a basis free of party politics. The nub of it all is that we are all concerned. I was very proud to listen today to the contribution of the honourable member for Wentworth, the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, because there is every possibility that he will be the next Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and his words indicate that the Liberal and National Country Parties have come to understand better and better the difficulties involved in introducing legislation and programs which will sufficiently meet the demands and requirements of these people.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They say he will be the next Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I can assure my honourable friend that he will never lead anything and after the next election he will be back from where he came, scrubbing the streets of his electorate with the heavy broom that the local council issued to him before he came into this place. I was trying to be non-partisan but unfortunately the Minister had to introduce politics. I will not spend too much time heaping praise on the Minister. A certain problem exists in my electorate which I believe will be multiplied throughout the country if the present Minister continues in office. A couple of years ago the Government acquired a hostel in the Brisbane suburb of Hill End. It was previously a Baptist theological college and it was converted to a hostel. It was the first such hostel in Australia and at the time a lot of concern was expressed. One of the predecessors of the present Minister- he is now the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) because the Prime Minister recognised that he was a fumbler in the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs- described the people of Hill End and West End as a pack of racists. I believe that at that time those people had every right to express concern because nobody knew what the Government was doing.

It is with a considerable degree of pleasure that I inform the House that since the Aboriginal people have moved into the hostel I have not had one word of complaint about activities at that hostel. It was originally run by a retired Air Force officer and is now being run by 2 Aboriginal women. There is another hostel in my electorate in the suburb of Hawthorne. Again I have not had one complaint. I perceive- I think all fair minded Australians would perceive- that in the Aboriginal community there is an acceptance of responsibility which we have not previously witnessed. More people than Neville Bonner can be pointed to these days as examples of people from the Aboriginal race who are successful. In Queensland- the State which is so often described by Labor politicians as being patronising towards Aboriginals- in the State Parliament there is an Aboriginal member from North Queensland. Queensland is the only State in Australia to have placed an Aboriginal member in this Parliament or in its own State Parliament. I hope that later when the Minister replies he will not allow himself to be possessed by his dislike of Queensland and forget the facts. When the Australian Labor Party gives an Aborigine the opportunity to be a candidate for one of its winnable seats I will dip my lid to it. But to date only the National Country Party and the Liberal Party have done that.

Mr Cross:

– What about endorsing an Aboriginal for Griffith?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not expect to be on this earth forever, and that proposition could be considered at some later stage. I want to refer to a matter which has caused a lot of controversy in Brisbane. I hope that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs recognises that he has erred in the method of purchase of the home at what is known as Trinity Lane. The Minister must be a fairly weak individual. I am not being personal, but that is all that I can assume. When a group of Aboriginals sat in a Commonwealth building in Adelaide Street, Brisbane- Leighton House- demanding certain things be done the Minister spoke to them and said: ‘Your wish shall be granted’. The Aborigines had been there for 10 days and the Minister agreed to allow them to purchase the home for $32,000. If the Minister had not seen the home when he agreed to them purchasing it or did not see it before it was purchased, shame on him. If he did see it before it was purchased and agreed to it being purchased, even more shame on him. Unfortunately that house has been the centre of controversy. I do not believe that it does anybody’s cause any good when bad judgment such as we see in the purchase of that house increases tension between the races. The Press release concerning the Minister’s announcement states that a Mr Watson said:

Most of the group here has given hostels a go; there’s a community rejection of them.

I visited that hostel last weekend. Hardly any of the originals are left there. Most of them moved out. The people who are presently residing in that place are from all over Queensland. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, the company set up by the Government to purchase Aboriginal accommodation, is furious at the manner in which it has been simply by passed completely and not consulted. More recent news is that the Minister has agreed to the group purchasing other homes in this same street. The problem of this particular hostel is that it is simply not suitable firstly for 1 6 people and secondly for up to 25 people who at times reside there. It has one flush toilet.

Mr Katter:

-Flush or flash?

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is not very flash. It has one flush toilet. If one looks inside the hostel and goes through- I say this on the side of the residents- one finds that the inside of that house is immaculate. It is swept twice a day. The self-styled or appointed supervisor ensures that the highest possible standard of cleanliness is maintained. But the provision of one toilet for 16 people is not good enough. If the Minister is going to allow this other group, the tribal council, to go off buying houses throughout Australia anywhere it wishes I suggest he might well abandon Aboriginal Hostels Ltd because it is simply not fair to that organisation if the Government itself is going to set up a competing organisation.

On visiting the home at Trinity Lane one sees a black power flag flying from a recently erected mast. As far as I am concerned it does not worry me one little bit. If the residents wanted to put the hammer and sickle outside their own home that would be all right. But surely in the interests of racial harmony and of the acceptance of the Government’s program- it involves expenditure in excess of $3 5m- of the acceptance of the program of housing these people in the cities, it would be wise not to flutter a flag which could initiate or awaken racism which may be nonexistent or dormant in the minds and hearts of white people. I simply say that the flag is a symbol which can be counter-productive. Whilst it does not worry me in the least, I hope that the people in the Department and those associated with tribal councils recognise that if they want their cause to be promoted, in the long term that sort of thing is not in their best interests.

Furthermore, the house which has been purchased is in a narrow, one-way and pokey street. It is close to the houses on the other side. If we are to have a policy of putting 16 people in a house with only three or four bedrooms we can expect only that 16 people will make noise which is far in excess of that which a normal family of six will make. So once again inadvertently or purposely- I do not know what motivates the Minister- we are contributing to racial tension and ill-will by the noise and disturbance which come from so many people living in the one residence. Surely if the Government is going to pursue a policy whereby it is to expend in excess of $35m in one year in purchasing accommodation for Aboriginal people some thought must be given to the ramifications and side effects of the actual spending. Regrettably Trinity Lane has commanded a lot of bad Press publicity. As I said previously, my visit there on Saturday afternoon was unannounced and nobody prepared for my arrival. I found the house to be completely clean. I drove past at midnight and the street and the house were quiet. I am assured that it is not always that quiet and that Saturday night is party night. Originally every night was party night.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope you keep your house clean too. Those are very condescending comments and they are a bit nauseating.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-You are a very nauseating Minister for a start.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Disgusting.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-You are very nauseating and you are a weak-kneed Minister because the moment that a number of people lock themselves into a building and start rattling the sword you say: ‘Give them what they want. I do not want any embarrassment as a Minister. I do not want to go down the same path as my predecessor.’ Public money is no problem to the Minister. He spends it without thought and without wisdom because that is his makeup. The manner in which he has administered his portfolio is typical of the way the Government has approached most of the problems of this country and it is no wonder that the people of this nation cannot wait for the next election. I hope that the Minister will take those comments on board. The problem is probably widespread. Few job opportunities are available for Aboriginal people, or for any people, and the problem at the moment is magnified because of the economic situation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-It does the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) no credit that he should single out this small group of disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians for his patronising remarks in this debate. The honourable member for Griffith is well aware that the need to which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) responded when he put up the very modest sums for the purchase of the property to which the honourable member for Griffith has referred was the need of homeless people. It is true that 16 of those homeless people now have a roof over their heads as a result of the action that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was able to take. It is equally true that many Aboriginal people in the city of Brisbane, as in other communities throughout Australia, are still unhoused or illhoused.

The elaborate argument that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) spun out in the House this afternoon would have been a good deal more credible if honourable members had not been vividly aware of the time which has elapsed since the question of land rights was first raised. The honourable member elaborated his argument at extraordinary length, but honourable members all recalled while he was speaking the stonewall resistance put up over a period of years to the land rights claims of the Gurindji by successive Country Party Ministers. Most honourable members would have been aware that behind the honourable member’s request for time to study this legislation- allegedly in the interests of securing better Bills- was a plea for time to reconcile the differences which have arisen over this question of land rights between the Liberal Party and the National Country Party.

Liberals, not to their credit but less to their discredit than might be the case, are not themselves very interested in this question of Aboriginal affairs. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who is sleeping on the front bench, has been an honourable exception to that rule, but he is uncharacteristic of the Party from which he springs. On the contrary though National Country Party members have always taken a very lively interest in Aboriginal affairs and especially in the land rights issue. Of course the National Country Party speaks in this place precisely for those groups in our society who see themselves as threatened by land rights becoming available to Aborigines. This has been brought out time and time again. The long fight of the Gurindji at Wave Hill was overwhelmingly a fight against Country Party resistance, a fight against Country Party intransigence, and that battle still goes on.

This legislation is being delayed. We are witnessing this last ditch attempt on the part of the honourable member for Wentworth to have the whole affair referred to yet another committee because the Country Party lives in hope that the matter of land rights for Aborigines, like the matter of electoral reform and one vote one value, can be staved off in the hope of an electoral miracle which will somehow make these issues dead letters. These are not matters of controversy. These are not matters of dispute. They are matters that have entered into the wisdom of the community. They are matters generally known to people who take an interest in Aboriginal affairs. Why otherwise could it have been that 8 long years had to go by before a small group of Aborigines, possessed of a fierce pride and an unusual measure of determination, could achieve title to their land at Wave Hill, title to land which was traditionally associated with the Gurindji tribe? Was this coincidence? Was this fortuitous? Was this because of unusual legal complexities? No. It was because of the determination of the land holders in the area whose interests are spoken for in this place by the Country Party to see that the issue of land rights was killed stone dead at its inception.

Mr Katter:

– What rot! Come out and live among the Aborigines as I have done all my life.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Unlike the honourable member for Kennedy who interjects I have been to Wave Hill and talked to the people there. I know the attitude taken by both sides to the controversy. I have heard the views put by the people at Wave Hill and I have heard the views put by their persecutors with whom the honourable member for Kennedy identifies.

Mr Calder:

– Tell me why the Aboriginal people voted for the Country Party in the Legislative Assembly elections?

Mr MATHEWS:

-The honourable member for the Northern Territory interjects and asks an extraordinary question. He asks why the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have a record of voting for Country Party candidates in the Northern Territory. This opens up a very interesting area of speculation indeed. It is one to which I think the House could fruitfully address itself. It is undoubtedly true that Aborigines show a unanimity in their voting behaviour in some settlements and on some missions which cannot be accounted for by any of the conventional rules of political science. I suggest that in the stillness of the night the honourable member for the Northern Territory should examine his own conscience in this matter and ask how those votes are rolled up, ask . under what conditions ballot papers are filled in on many of the missions and settlements which give the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) his majority. He should ask himself under what sort of tutelage the franchise is exercised in many of these places. He should ask himself what is the character of many of the people who preside over the ballot boxes in his constituency.’ If the honourable member for the Northern Territory will answer those questions honestly he will acknowledge the deep deficiency of democracy in the Northern Territory up to this point and the very great need for reform of the electoral procedures of the Northern Territory if the real aspirations of the Aboriginal people are ever to achieve proper political expression. The honourable member for the Northern Territory knows that what I have said is true.

When the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory interrupted me, I was addressing myself to this question of land rights. I was anxious to make the point that it is important to distinguish in this question of land rights between those Aboriginal communities which have retained a sense of identity, which have retained a sense of purpose and which have forward looking aspirations of their own as is the case preeminently with the Gurindji, and those Aboriginal communities, such as the people of Lake Tyers in my own State, who have none of these attributes. The debate about land rights is overwhelming- debate about the restoration of the sense of identity, about the restoration of a sense of self-respect to the Aboriginal people. If it is to be effective, there must be some sensitive monitoring of the circumstances in which transfer of land rights is encompassed.

We have had a most unfortunate experience in my own State where, I believe, the Victorian Government would not have behaved differently in the matter of Lake Tyers if it had been the Government’s intention to discredit the whole notion of land rights from the outset. At Lake Tyers, a valuable property hitherto previously used as an Aboriginal reserve, was handed over to a group of Aborigines, broken in health, broken in spirit and deprived of self-respect, who were unable to take advantage of what had been given to them. More than having this great asset, this property turned over to them overnight, as it were, these people were left purposely to sink or swim from resources which in fact they did not possess. These were the circumstances in which the first transfer of land rights took place in Australia. We should all be prepared to learn lessons from what has followed in the case of Lake Tyers where the property has gone steadily downhill, where the quality of the community has undergone a steady deterioration and where the people themselves have become increasingly discouraged and demoralised. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2768

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

States Grants Bill.

States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill.

Local Government Grants Bill.

page 2768

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Les Johnson) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

page 2769

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Legal Aid Offices (Question No. 2644)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When is it anticipated that the Australian Legal Aid Offices proposed for Whyalla and Port Pirie in South Australia will be established.

Mr Enderby:
Attorney-General · ALP

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

I accept the great need for an Australian Legal Aid Office in the areas named but 1 regret 1 am unable to indicate a firm date on which these offices will commence business.

The program for opening of regional offices is now being reviewed having regard to availability of funds and staff ceilings arising out of budgetary considerations. This could affect the opening of the offices at Whyalla and Port Pirie and other offices in this financial year.

Departmental Grants, Loans and Subsidies (Question No. 2693)

Mr Lamb:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. (a) Under the Home Savings Grant Scheme, nonrepayable grants of up to $750 are made to young married couples, and to young widowed or divorced persons with dependent children, who have met the conditions of the Scheme, to assist them in the acquisition of their first matrimonial homes;

    1. Under the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement,
    1. repayable advances are made to the States’ Home Builders’ Accounts for on-lending through terminating building societies, or an approved State lending authority in some States, to means-tested prospective home owners;

    2. subject to the approval of the Minister, part of the advances made available to State housing authorities under the Housing Agreement may be used to provide bridging finance to local authorities or institutions for community amenities that are not the responsibility of the housing authority.

    3. Financial assistance by way of grants-in-aid have been provided to two organisations whose activities relate to my portfolio.

  2. (a) Information on the Home Savings Grant

Scheme is available from the explanatory pamphlet ‘A Gram for Your Home which may be obtained on request from banks, building societies and offices of the Department.

  1. (i) Information on Home Builders’ Account loans is available from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or equivalent authority in each State;

  2. Information on bridging finance for community amenities is available from the booklet ‘Australian Government Assistance to local government projects’ which may be obtained from the Australian Government Publishing Service.

    1. 1 refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to question No. 2691 in Hansard of 21 August 1975 (page 468).

Disabled Persons (Question No. 2831)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

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

Further to Question No. 2239 in which I sought information about the question of altering existing Government buildings wherever possible to improve the access and facilities available for disabled people, what action has been taken by the Government to achieve progress in this area since 2 December 1972.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

On 28 May 1975 my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services the honourable F. M. Daly wrote to the right honourable member informing him that where possible action would be taken progressively to improve the access and facilities available for disabled persons in Australian Government buildings.

As Minister now responsible for such matters I reiterate that it is the Government’s policy to provide access and other facilities for disabled people in newly constructed Government buildings and wherever possible to upgrade existing buildings.

A continuous evaluation program to establish the feasibility of converting existing premises has been set up by my Department and in quite a number of cases these additional facilities have already been provided.

Land Tenure (Question No. 2898)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Else-Mitchell Report on Land Tenure propose that land disposed of for residential purposes should be granted on the basis of fee simple title subject to improvement convenants and the reservation of development rights.
  2. If so, is this recommendation to be applied to residential land in the areas of New South Wales which are proposed to be used for Canberra growth by extending the borders of the A.C.T.; if not, why not.
  3. Is a statement of the Government’s position in relation to all the recommendations of the Else-Mitchell Report to be made; if so, when.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. The Commission of Inquiry into land Tenures did recommend that land disposed of for residential purposes should be granted on the basis of fee simple titles subject to improvement conditions and the reservation of development rights. However for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory it was recommended that residential land be held under perpetual leases subject to the reservation of development rights and to the payment of capital premiums on allocation but not to rental obligations.
  2. As no agreement has been reached between the Australian Government and the Government of New South Wales in relation to areas of New South Wales proposed to be used for Canberra growth by extending the borders of the A.C.T. no question of tenure for these areas has yet been considered.
  3. A statement of the Government’s position in relation to a number of recommendations of the Commission was made in the Prime Minister’s Press Statement of August 6 1974. At this stage of the Commission’s deliberations no further statement is contemplated.

Safety (Question No. 3136)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 Riordan:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 3110 which appeared in Hansard on 1 October 1975, page 1598.

Timor: Red Cross Travel (Question No. 3155)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did the Red Cross refuse permission for medical volunteers for Timor to travel on an empty RAAF aircraft scheduled to fly from Richmond to Darwin.
  2. Do RAAF aircraft fly to Darwin under control of the Red Cross organisation.
  3. If so, by what authority does the Red Cross have charge of RAAF operations.
  4. If the position is as stated, is the Australian Government shirking its responsibility by allowing the Red Cross organisation to take charge and make decisions in respect of RAAF flight operations.
Mr Morrison:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters relating to the Islands of the Pacific · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 could not speak for the Red Cross as to whether or not it gave sponsorship to particular individuals or organisations, but in any event see (2).
  2. No.
  3. and (4) See (2).

Household Income and Expenditure Survey (Question No. 3251)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

When will results of the National Survey of Household Income and Expenditure carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in August 1973 for the Poverty Commission be available to the Commission, to the Government and the public.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that in August 1973 the Australian Bureau of Statistics carried out a National Survey of Income for the Commission of Enquiry into Poverty. All the results required by the Poverty Commission were made available to the Commission prior to the writing of its first main report, ‘Poverty in Australia1. Since then, results have been made available to a number of Government departments and individuals on request.

On page 13 of the Commission’s report reference was made to the fact that results of a more recent survey, the Survey of Household Expenditure, were not available at the time of writing the report. The Household Expenditure Survey was the first survey of its kind and was carried out during the period July 1974 to June 1975. First results of this Survey are expected to be available early in 1976.

Departments and Agencies: Accident Rate (Question No. 3250)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

Will the Minister give the statistics necessary which will enable a judgment to be made as to the trend of accident frequency in government departments and agencies.

Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

Prior to the Government’s directive of 10 September 1974, relating to the application of the Code of General Principles on Occupational Safety and Health in Australian Government Employment, there was no requirement for Australian Government departments or agencies to record and report their accident experience.

Nevertheless, quite a number of undertakings have participated in a voluntary reporting scheme for many years, and have forwarded annual returns to the Department of Labor and Immigration for consolidation. The numbers of undertakings participating in the scheme, and the incidence of injuries per 1000 persons employed, over the past 10 years for which figures are available, are shown in the following table.

It should be noted that the 36 undertakings participating in this scheme employ about two-thirds of the Australian Government workforce. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Grants-in-Aid are detailed in ( 1 ). Home Savings Grants and Home Builders' Account loans are made to individual persons and not to organisations. {:#subdebate-40-8} #### Petroleum and Minerals Authority (Question No. 3218) {: #subdebate-40-8-s0 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What amount has been expended subsequent to 24 June 1975 under the authority of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act or in consequence of arrangements made under that Act; {: #subdebate-40-8-s1 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean:
ALP -- The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The total amount expended since 24 June 1975, up to close of business on 10 October 1975, by the Department of Minerals and Energy on the activities of the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority is $2,407,069.42. 1. In regard to such expenditure, what is the amount, date, payee and object of each payment and to what Budget head was it charged. 2. Details of the $2,407,069.42 expended by the Department of Minerals and Energy are shown in the following schedule. Note: The Petroleum and Minerals Company of Australia Pty Ltd is inactive. {:#subdebate-40-9} #### Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 3263) {: #subdebate-40-9-s0 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total number of Vietnamese refugees who have now arrived in Australia. 1. What assistance is being provided for these refugees in the area of (a) housing, (b) employment, (c) welfare and (d) language training. 2. Have any refugees sought repatriation; if so, how many. {: #subdebate-40-9-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No later statistics are available than those supplied by the Minister for Labor and Immigration in answer to the honourable member's question No. 2706 (Hansard, 2 October 1975, page 1713). 1. The assistance being provided for these refugees in the areas of housing, employment, welfare and language training is the same as that provided for other non-English speaking new arrivals. 2. No refugees have approached the Australian Government for repatriation. {:#subdebate-40-10} #### Department of Foreign Affairs: Anticipated Staff Increases (Question No. 3267) {: #subdebate-40-10-s0 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What increase in the current staff level of the Department of Foreign Affairs is anticipated during 1975-76. 1. How many of this increase will be (a) foreign affairs officers and ( b ) others. 2. Within group (b) of pan (2) in what categories will they be employed. {: #subdebate-40-10-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The anticipated increase in the staff level of the Department of Foreign Affairs during 1975-76 is 1 18 officers. 1. Of this increase 38 will be Foreign Affairs officers and the remaining 80 will be officers of other classifications 2. The categories of employment for the 80 officers are as follows: Technical officers 10; Trainee Technical officers 20; Computer Systems operators ADP 12; Research Officers 6; Librarians 2; Third Divisional Clerical officers 14; Clerical Assistants 8; Keyboard staff 8. {:#subdebate-40-11} #### New Missions (Question No. 3268) {: #subdebate-40-11-s0 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will any new overseas posts be established during 1975-76. 1. If so, where will they be, and when will they be established. {: #subdebate-40-11-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. A High Commission was established in Nicosia, Cyprus, in August of this year. It is proposed to established an Embassy in Baghdad during the last quarter of the current financial year. VIP Motor Cars (Question No. 3276) {: #subdebate-40-11-s2 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it the intention of the Government to have all the VIP cars painted white; if not, what exactly is the intention. 1. Are 2 cars painted black to be retained at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs; if not, what is the position. 2. How many cars are located at various places in Australia. 3. What types are they. 4. What colours are they painted. {: #subdebate-40-11-s3 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) It is the intention to have all VIP cars in the Department of the Capital Territory fleet painted white. 1. Two black can have been retained in the fleet at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs but they have now been withdrawn from service in preparation for disposal and they will be sold shortly. 2. , (4) and (5) There are 27 Ford LTD and 22 Ford Fairlane 500 VIP cars in the Department of the Capital Territory fleet all located in Canberra. All are painted white. {:#subdebate-40-12} #### Rent Control (Question No. 3302) {: #subdebate-40-12-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has he noted Professor Henderson's conclusions in his report on poverty that a major extension of rent control apparatus is against the long-term interest of tenants. 1. If so, what is his attitude to Professor Henderson's conclusion. 2. If he agrees with them, will he suspend rent control procedures in the Australian Capital Territory; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-40-12-s1 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) I do not consider that Professor Henderson's discussion of rent control is pertinent to the system which operates in the A.C.T. The purpose of rent control in the A.C.T. is not to stop rents from rising, neither is it the intention to determine rents below market values. The evidence of rent control operating in Britain and other countries is therefore not relevant. No convincing figures have been adduced to show that the overall effect of rent control in the A.C.T. has been a sharp reduction in the supply of accommodation for rent. This would be a likely consequence where landlords were not allowed an economic return on their investment, but this is not a policy which has been adopted in the A.C.T. There has been a decrease in the amount of accommodation available for renting in the A.C.T. but there has been a similar decrease in other Australian cities. The purpose of rent control in the A.C.T. is to standardise rents for comparable premises and to stabilise the rate of increase in rents. This ensures that landlords do not take advantage of prospective tenants as a result of the shortage of accommodation, and prevent poorer tenants from being out-bid in the market. The system in the A.C.T. is under continual review. {:#subdebate-40-13} #### Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3307) {: #subdebate-40-13-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control. 1. ) What is the general nature of the publications. 2. In what language are they published. 3. When were they first published in this way. {: #subdebate-40-13-s1 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson:
ALP -- The' answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590) {:#subdebate-40-14} #### United Nations Peacekeeping: Middle East (Question No. 3258) {: #subdebate-40-14-s0 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What indication has Australia made formally or informally to the United Nations Secretary General that it would be prepared to commit troops to a Middle East peace keeping operation. 1. Has the United Nations made an approach to Australia formally or informally seeking troops for peace keeping operations in the Middle East. 2. What units does Australia have available for peacekeeping operations. {: #subdebate-40-14-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) On 26 October 1973 the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, **Mr Barnard,** said that, if the proposal to set up a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) led to a request to Australia to provide a contribution, the Government would consider such a request sympathetically. On 29 October 1973 the Australian Permanent Representative to the United Nations informed senior officers of the UN in New York that, if requested, Australia would be prepared then to offer a joint force of approximately 440 personnel to the UNEF being set up following the October 1973 war between Israel, and Egypt and Syria. On 30 September 1 974 the Prime Minister, in his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, said: 'We wish Australia to be always among the first nations from which the United Nations would ask for peacekeeping forces: we shall be among the first to respond'. On 9 January 1975, as a follow-up to the Prime Minister's speech, the Australian Permanent Representative to the United Nations gave the Secretary-General of the United Nations a list of the units on which Australia expected to be able to draw for United Nations peacekeeping purposes should Australia be requested to participate. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. 1. Every three months the Department of Defence reviews the schedule of units referred to and an up-dated version is passed to the United Nations in New York. The schedule, while not representing a firm commitment to provide any of the units listed, represents the best current assessment of the resources on which we would expect to be able to draw for UN peacekeeping purposes. Each schedule so far has contained details of possible contributions of the following types: {: .page-start } page 2774 {:#debate-41} ### RAN {: .page-start } page 2774 {:#debate-42} ### ARMY {: .page-start } page 2774 {:#debate-43} ### RAAF The size and make-up of any contribution from within these types that could be offered in response to a specific requirement would need to take account of all relevant factors at the time. These would include the location of the assignment, current Defence Force commitments and an assessment of any other contingencies that could arise while forces were committed to a peacekeeping operation. {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Namibia: United Nations Trust Fund (Question No. 3262) {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the United Nations Trust Fund for South West Africa (Namibia). 1. What is the Government's attitude to the Fund. 2. What contributions has the Government made to the Fund. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. By its resolution 2679 (XXV) of 9 December 1970, the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a United Nations Fund for Namibia. Australia voted in favour of this resolution. The Assembly took the view that the United Nations, having terminated South Africia's mandate to administer the Territory and having itself assumed direct responsibility for Namibia until independence, had incurred an obligation to assist and prepare the people of the Territory for independence and that to this end the United Nations should provide them with comprehensive assistance. The Assembly's decision to establish such a fund was taken after consideration of a request by the Security Council, contained in its resolution 283 (1970), that a Fund should be created to provide assistance to Namibians who had suffered from persecution and to finance a comprehensive educational training program for Namibians, with particular regard to their future administrative responsibilities in the Territory. The Fund is financed from three sources: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. an allocation from the regular United Nations Budget; 1. voluntary contributions from Governments; and 2. voluntary contributions from non-governmental organisations and institutions. Amongst the uses to which the Fund is being put are the provisions of vocational and technical training for Namibians in Kenya and the establishment and financing of the Institute for Namibia in Lusaka, which will provide a variety of training in administrative and technical fields. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Australian Government supports the aims and objectives of the Fund, believing that it has provided and will continue to provide valuable economic and technical assistance to the people of Namibia, which will help prepare them for independence. 1. The Government has made the following contributions to the Fund: 1972- 73-$A5,000 1973- 74-$A5,000 1974- 75-$A10,000 1975- 76- $A25,000 (subject to Parliamentary approval). {:#subdebate-43-1} #### Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3325) {: #subdebate-43-1-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or Authorities under his control. 1. What is the general nature of the publications. 2. In what languages are they published. 3. When were they first published in this way. {: #subdebate-43-1-s1 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant:
ALP -- The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) One publication, entitled 'Let's Talk Nature Strips' is to be produced in foreign languages. It is an information brochure for distribution to members of the Canberra Community. 1. English, German and Italian. 2. The English version is expected to be delivered from the printers in approximately one month. It will be followed by the two foreign language versions shortly afterwards. {:#subdebate-43-2} #### Muramulla Gurindji Cattle Company (Question No. 3343) {: #subdebate-43-2-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Of the 212 Aborigines living at Wattie Creek, how many are participants in the Muramulla Gurindji Pastoral Company or are dependants of participants. 1. How many are members of the Mudbra tribe, and have they any interest in the Northern Territory Pastoral Lease No. 80S. 2. Where is the traditional land of the Mudbra tribe. 3. What action is being taken for the provision of land for the Mudbra tribe. {: #subdebate-43-2-s1 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Muramulla Gurindji Cattle Company was formed in Victoria and shares are held in trust for the whole Community . . . The Mudbra people at Wattie Creek are an accepted part of the whole community. 1. There are 30 Mudbra people living at Wattie Creek at the moment and their interest in Pastoral Lease No. 80S is proportionate to their interest in the Muramulla Gurindji Cattle Company. 2. Mudbra traditional land lies to the east of Wattie Creek, roughly in the triangle from Newcastle Waters to Cattle Creek to Montejinnie 3. The Mudbra people are presently split into groups inside and outside their traditional country. One group is seeking urban land in Elliott through their housing association and another has displayed some interest in a cattle property in their traditional country but have not made any firm approach as yet. {:#subdebate-43-3} #### Dairy Industry (Question No. 3347) {: #subdebate-43-3-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Did the former Minister for Agriculture give approval for the expenditure of up to $40,000 from dairy stabilisation funds for a special study of the dairy industry. 1. If so, was the former Minister aware that Spectrum International Marketing Services Pty. Ltd., was to conduct the study. 2. Was the former Minister also aware of the possible link between that Company and leading members of dairy industry organisations. 3. What criteria did the company use to select the five man 'think tank' team who conducted the study. 4. How much were these men paid, and what expenses were provided. 5. How many of these men were appointed to the Australian Dairy Corporation by the former Minister. {: #subdebate-43-3-s1 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In May 1975, following a recommendation from the Australian Dairy Produce Board which was acting on a request to it from the Australian Dairy Industry Council my predecessor approved use of monies from the stabilisation fund to an amount not exceeding $40,000 for the conduct of a special study of the industry by Spectrum. 1. While the submission from the Australian Dairy Produce Board made no reference to the matter, I am informed that before submitting its recommendation, the Board considered this aspect and satisfied itself about the propriety of the arrangements. 2. and (5) These are matters for arrangement between the Australian Dairy Industry Council which commissioned the study and Spectrum International. However, to assist the honourable member, I have been informed that the personnel were selected after discussion with individuals and organisations within the dairy industry; and that, to date, a progress payment of $25,000 has been made to Spectrum. 3. Two members of the 'think tank' team, both dairy farmers, have been appointed to the Australian Dairy Corporation from a list of names submitted by the Australian Dairy Farmers ' Federation. {:#subdebate-43-4} #### Meat Inspection Service (Question No. 3353) {: #subdebate-43-4-s0 .speaker-K5A} ##### Mr O'Keefe: asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the dual meat inspection service *COstly* and increasing the price of meat products. 1. Have any conferences taken place recently between the States and the Australian Government to bring in a single system of inspection. 2. If not, will the Minister confer with the various States on this important subject to see if a single inspection service can be introduced for meat inspection in Australia. {: #subdebate-43-4-s1 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) In the States where dual or joint meat inspection services operate, extra costs are incurred but it is not known whether this is increasing the price of meat products. 1. and (3) Yes. Since 1973 the Australian Agricultural Council has considered meat inspection arrangements on several occasions. Meetings between officers of the various Departments involved have also been taking place, most recently on 23 October 197S. These discussions are directed towards rationalising the system and if possible reducing unnecessary costs. {:#subdebate-43-5} #### International Telephone Calls: Credit Cards (Question No. 3153) {: #subdebate-43-5-s0 .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr Bourchier: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >Is it a fact that PMG credit cards for use by Australians overseas are not accepted in many countries which are listed as places where such credit cards will be accepted. {: #subdebate-43-5-s1 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The Australian Telecommunications Commission has agreements with twenty-three overseas countries wherein Australian-issued international credit cards may be used to make telephone calls back to this country. > >In the Commission's experience the system works well and only two reports of difficulty have been received in recent times. The two countries concerned in those instances do not provide credit card systems of their own and unfamiliarity with the facility on the part of, for example, hotel receptionists, can be a source of difficulty. > >If the honourable member has details of any difficulties experienced by Australian credit card holders the Commission would be pleased to take the matter up with the overseas administration/s concerned. {:#subdebate-43-6} #### Official Residences (Question No. 3165) {: #subdebate-43-6-s0 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What has been the cost of running: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a ) Kirribilli House and 1. b) the Lodge for each of the last S years. 1. What were the main elements in these costs. 2. What is the estimated running cost on an annual basis of the projected residence for the Prime Minister in Melbourne. 3. How many people have stayed in Kirribilli House in each of the last 3 years. 4. 5 ) What was the purpose and period of their stay. 5. Is the cost of food and liquor at the official residences now borne by the Government, and was it formerly the responsibility of the Prime Minister. {: #subdebate-43-6-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2 ) For many years, successive Governments have followed the principle that costs of the four official establishmentsGovernment House, Admiralty House, Kirribilli House and the Prime Minister's Lodge- should be regarded as a total charge against the annual Budget appropriation. Each year the Budget papers show the total commitment for maintaining all four residences. Both estimated costs for the ensuing year and actual costs for the preceding 12 months are given. For 1974-75 expenditure, I refer the honourable member to page 93, Division 505 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, and to page 21, Division 915/1/01 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76. Previous years' expenditure will be found in earlier Appropriation Acts. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The lease of Grimwade House, Melbourne, is still being negotiated with the Trustees and no firm estimate of annual running costs can be given. The property is to provide accommodation in Melbourne for overseas guests of the Australian Government or for use as required by the Governor-General or the Prime Minister for official purposes. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. and (5) Kirribilli House has been used by successive Governments to provide secure and convenient accommodation for official guests including visiting Heads of State and Heads of Government. The amount of use for this purpose has been relatively constant over the years. Kirribilli House has also provided a government-owned residence for Prime Ministers when they have stayed in Sydney and a secure staffed venue during those occasions for meetings with Ministers and/or officials. The amount of use for these purposes has varied with the Prime Ministers, but, for my own part, I have stayed at or used Kirribilli House virtually every time my official duties have taken me to Sydney. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. See page 9 of the Remuneration Tribunal's 1975 Review. It should be noted that the Prime Minister is paid no travelling allowance when residing at the Lodge or Kirribilli House. {:#subdebate-43-7} #### Official Residences (Question No. 3405) {: #subdebate-43-7-s0 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: >When will he provide an answer to my question No. 3165 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 7 October 1 975. {: #subdebate-43-7-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Today. {:#subdebate-43-8} #### Works of Art: Acquisitions (Question No. 3177) {: #subdebate-43-8-s0 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How much has the Government spent on buying works of art (a) in Australia and (b) abroad during 1973, 1974 and 1975 to date. 1. Will he itemise art purchases in the last 3 years, to a cost of $100,000 or more, giving details of price and provenance. 2. On what occasions have purchasing teams gone overseas in connection with art purchases. 3. Who were the members of each of those teams. 4. What agents or agencies have been used either in Australia or overseas in connection with art purchases. 5. Did any member of any purchasing team have any interest in or connection with any agent or agency; if so, what was that interest or connection. {: #subdebate-43-8-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (D- {: type="1" start="2"} 0. As indicated in my answer to his predecessor on 8 April 1975 (Hansard, pages 1329-54), it is normal international gallery practice not to make public prices paid for individual works of an as a matter of principle, out of regard, frequently, to the wishes of vendors and with regard to the effects such disclosures might have on market values whether up or down. 1. to (6) I refer the honourable member to my reply to him on 10 April 1975 (Hansard, page 1563). {:#subdebate-43-9} #### Telephone Services (Question No. 3238) {: #subdebate-43-9-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >Concerning the night closure of the Quairading Telephone Exchange since 25 October 1974. > >what is the cost to the Australian Telecommunications Commission in a full year of the reduced rental rates now applicable, > >what is the saving to the Australian Telecommunications Commission in a full year on wages for night attendants and > >c) what revenue is estimated to be forgone in a full year. {: #subdebate-43-9-s1 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. $18,995. 1. $2,340 based on the current level of night telephone allowance at exchanges such as Quairading. 2. In addition to loss on rental, it is estimated that call revenue of $270 is being forgone per year. {:#subdebate-43-10} #### Prime Minister's Overseas Visits (Question No. 3404) {: #subdebate-43-10-s0 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What customs procedures have been followed for himself, his staff and all those accompanying him on his aircraft on each occasion that he has returned to Australia from an overseas visit. 1. Will he give a categorical and absolute undertaking that every person travelling on his aircraft on each occasion went through customs in the ordinary way and that there was no evasion of customs duty. {: #subdebate-43-10-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) As far as I remember, the procedure was always the same as described in my answer to Question No. 2203 (2) *(Hansard,* 6 March 1975, pages 1243-3).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 November 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751104_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant