House of Representatives
18 October 1966

25th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1853

PETITIONS

Aborigines

Mr. LUCHETTI presented a petition from certain citizens of the Commonwealth praying that action be taken, through Constitution alteration referendum proposals, to give the Commonwealth power to make laws for the advancement of the Aboriginal people and prevent the making of laws which would discriminate against any person born or naturalised in Australia.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr. GRAY presented a petition from certain Queensland pensioners praying that the Parliament give immediate consideration to the question of increasing pensions to a minimum of not less than SO per cent, of the basic wage.

Petition received and read.

page 1853

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Transport, or his Department, any information for the House concerning the recent decision of the overseas shipping conference lines to rationalise their loading and unloading in Australian ports, that is, to call only at major ports? Because of the profound and serious effect this policy would have on Tasmanian exporters and primary producers if,” for instance, northern Tasmanian ports were bypassed, thus forcing the transportation of overseas goods from Tasmania to Melbourne, would the Minister ascertain whether such a decision has been made by the overseas shipping companies in respect of Tasmania? Has the Government any power to prevent this rationalisation programme if any State will be economically impoverished by it?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– 1 understand that some discussions on rationalisation have taken place with the Department of Trade and Industry which is administered by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry. I cannot give the honorable member any information along the lines he has asked for.

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– My question also is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I ask: What are the prospects for employment of Australian seamen in the coastal tanker trade for the future? How many tankers are currently engaged and are any tankers of R. W. Miller and Co. Pty. Ltd. included in this number? Has his Department undertaken any survey of future requirements for tanker tonnage? If so, on what is this calculation based?

Mr FREETH:

– Some time ago the Government decided that oil should be carried around the Australian coast in ships registered under the Australian flag. This required that they should be manned by Australian seamen. Therefore, whatever company curries oil around the Australian coast, it seems likely that this policy will continue. That being so and there being at the present time approximately 10 tankers engaged in carrying oil around the Australian coast, those ships being manned by something over 400 seamen, I understand, it would seem that their prospects for employment will continue. I say this because there seems to be some impression that, because two of the tankers owned by one company are currently without employment, there is no prospect of employment in the future for Australian seamen in carrying oil around the Australian coast. This impression is entirely false. We have every reason to believe that of the 12 tankers which are at present registered under the Australian flag, there are certain prospects for employment for 10 of them, including one owned by R. W. Miller and Co. Pty. Ltd. which is at present engaged by B.P. Refinery (Kwinana) Ltd. The Miller company has been told that there are prospects for its employment for 12 months ahead.

As to calculations or projections of the likely requirements for tanker tonnage around the Australian coast, this is a fairly tricky business. There are a number of variable factors which we cannot entirely foresee. So far as is possible my Department makes an assessment of the position. This can be done only on the basis of the total tonnage of oil which is normally carried around the Australian coast, based on past requirements, and any likely increase in demand, the number of ship days which are required normally to carry such tonnage and the number of days in each year for which a ship can be normally expected to be engaged. This pattern changes sometimes due to the actions of the oil companies. The companies control and own the cargoes which are carried, so it is not easy to vary their decisions. They make arrangements with other companies. The pattern changes also because of arrangements made with .new oil refineries that come on stream, and the pattern is likely to change and is probably even more uncertain in the future because of the discoveries of oil around the Australian coast and the uncertainty of what requirements will be for the carriage of crude oil around the coast. But in all this there is the certainty that more petroleum products will be used by the Australian people. There is an increasing demand and in total quantity more oil will probably be required to be moved in the future from place to place around the Australian coast. However, I cannot give my honorable friend any detailed analysis of future demand at this point of time.

To go back to the honorable member’s earlier question, may I say that the prospects for the continuation of the employment of Australian seamen in this trade are good. The Government has no reason to doubt that the oil companies will honour their obligations to build Australian tankers to replace those which they have now imported. If they were not to do so the Government would have other ways of ensuring that oil is carried around the coast in ships flying the Australian flag and manned by Australian seamen.

page 1854

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. Has his attention been directed to a statement made by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the effect that certain aspects of the national broadcasting service would have to become a charge upon general revenue, or licence fees would have to be raised if the Commission were to continue to operate efficiently and satistorily? I ask the honorable gentleman whether he has noted the complaint in the 1966 report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in these terms -

It does not seem reasonable to the Commission that these capital needs should be thought of a? a charge against the current income derived from licence fees. Rather these constitute the capital investment without which a service to the community cannot be rendered and should be regarded as such in any financial assessment of income and expenditure.

What discussions have taken place between the A. B.C. and the Government on this matter? If no action is proposed by the Government to solve one of the dilemmas of the national broadcasting authority, does the Government intend to allow another efficient Government enterprise to be disadvantaged in the interests of private companies?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– From time to time there are general discussions between the Chairman of the A.B.C. and myself. At Budget time the Commission’s proposals are put before the Government and the level of expenditure that can be allowed the Commission in the ensuing year is determined. The relationship of expenditure to the Commission’s revenue from licence fees is not really taken into account.

page 1854

QUESTION

AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Mr BRIDGES-MAXWELL:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of recent criticism of Australia’s aid to underdeveloped countries, I ask whether it is a fact that only three countries grant more aid on a per capita basis than Australia does, and whether the aid given by Australia, unlike that provided by those other countries, is in the form of grants and not loans. Is it also a fact that the comparisons that have been made do not take into account the indirect aid given by Australia by making available places in our tertiary, secondary and primary education systems for overseas students? Is it a fact that last year there were 10,865 such private students - not sponsored under the Colombo Plan or similar schemes - and that 3,211 of these were attending the universities? If this is true, can the Prime Minister tell the House the estimated cost to Australia of this additional aid?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable gentleman is, on my information, very close to the mark in what he has put forward for confirmation. I do not know that we can claim to rank fourth among the countries that give this aid, but we can certainly claim, on the standards applied in the assessment of the grant of aid, to rank fifth in per capita terms.

Mr Whitlam:

– If we include New Guinea as one of the aided countries.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Should we not include New Guinea? I would have thought it was an appropriate country to receive aid from us, and certainly our aid to New Guinea is given on as disinterested a basis as one could ever expect to find. It is in the nature of colonialism in reverse. We do not look for material gain from what we are doing in New Guinea. We regard it as the assumption of a very proper obligation - one that we have assumed quite gladly and cheerfully. The honorable member has brought out in his question the fact that a good deal of practical aid is given by Australia which does not find expression in the statistics. It is a fact that we have nearly 12,000 students from other countries in our universities and schools. Those students at the universities who are sponsored are included in our aid figures but there are just on 10,500 overseas students in our universities and schools who are not included. The assessment which has been made is that the fees paid by those unsponsored students at our universities would cover only about 20 per cent, of the actual cost. So Australia is interpreting, in a quite realistic way, the assisting and subsidising of the education of these students from overseas.

While I cannot give offhand the precise estimate of those in the schools, much the same situation would apply. So the honorable member is correct in pointing to this addition to our published aid. There is also the fact, which I think he brought out, that unlike most countries Australia has given its aid in the form of grants and not by way of loans. It must be borne in mind that Australia is a capital importing country, a country facing great tasks in its development and which over recent years has also found it necessary to double its expenditure on defence. When all these factors are taken into account, when it is known that our provision for aid has been steadily rising while that of most of the industrialised countries of Western Europe has been comparatively static, then I think we can claim that we are demonstrating our desire to be good neighbours to other countries generally, and in particular to those close to us.

page 1855

QUESTION

EXCISE

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. First, is he aware of the tax proposed to be applied by the Victorian Government to the sale of gas and electricity? Secondly, has he considered whether such a tax is an excise tax and therefore beyond the constitutional power of the Victorian Government? Thirdly, if he is in any doubt about the legality of such a tax, has he sought an opinion on the matter from his colleague the Attorney-General?

Mr MCMAHON:
Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This is a matter for the Victorian Government. I have considered the tax proposed by the Victorian Government. In my view any party who wishes to challenge its constitutional validity has a right to do so in the High Court. I do not think it is my function, nor the function of the Commonwealth Government, to be expressing a legal opinion on this matter. The courts, not we, are there to do this job.

page 1855

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is he aware that the President of the British Board of Trade, Mr. Douglas Jay, said quite recently, when speaking an the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s “ Guest of Honour “ programme, that in negotiations regarding the European Common Market the interests of Commonwealth trade would be safeguarded and that he did not believe that Britain would cease expanding its trade with Australia? Has the Minister any information confirming this as the policy of the United Kingdom Government? If not, can he say whether Mr. Jay’s statement is in line with the general trend of events?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade and Industry · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– 1 am familiar with the speech made by Mr. Jay on the “ Guest of Honour “ session and with speeches made on other occasions while he was in Australia. What he then said about Britain being willing to join the European Common Market, and in regard to safeguarding the interests of Australia, is consistent with what he said, as President of the Board of Trade, at the meeting of Commonwealth Ministers for Trade in London in June. At that time he intimated on behalf of his Government that Britain stood ready to join the Common Market; that in due course there would be negotiations - or offers to negotiate - but that it was the intention of the British Government to safeguard the interests of Commonwealth countries. Upon request he assured the Commonwealth Ministers that they would be kept informed of the trend of events, and if negotiations reached a point warranting it there would be some consultations with the Commonwealth countries that might be concerned.

My own comment is that whilst I welcome the assurances given ‘by Mr. Jay on behalf of his Government, from what I know of the European Common Market I am frankly not able to comprehend that Britain is likely to be able to negotiate an arrangement that would really safeguard Australia’s opportunities to sell to Britain itself, or to the Common Market countries jointly, on terms comparable with those under which our major exports have access to the United Kingdom without quantity restriction and either free of duty or at a preferential tariff rate. I can only say that this is my view and that I shall watch events very closely.

page 1856

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Postmaster-General. Can the honorable gentleman advise me why exempt female mail officers in his Department are paid 95 per cent, of the male rate for their work during the busy Christmas period whereas for the rest of the year they are returned to 75 per cent, of the male rate for the same type of work? Does the Minister not think that in view of the speedy, skilful and competent manner in which these ladies handle the huge pileups of mail in busy periods, they should be kept on 95 per cent, of the male rate throughout the year?

Mr HULME:
LP

– The honorable member will know that the Public Service Board determines the salaries to be paid to employees of the Post Office. As to the other comments which he made, I would be pleased if he would bring them under the notice of the executive members of the union which is concerned with those matters.

page 1856

QUESTION

ARMY CANTEEN SERVICES UN VIETNAM

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I preface a question addressed to the Minister for the Army by referring to the fact that the Government, having established a task force organisation in Vietnam, has properly endeavoured to make our forces there more self supporting. In this context, I ask whether the Minister will give consideration to establishing a full Australian canteen service for the benefit of our troops in Vietnam instead of relying on a small section of our canteen services operating through the American P.X. system, as at present.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Shortly after the task force was established in Vietnam, the initial elements of a canteen organisation were sent to that theatre. Positions were opened in the Vung Tau, the logistic support area, and in the task force area. Our people are able to obtain supplies not only from the American P.X. when suitable, but also from Singapore at prices which, as the honorable member would know, are extremely favorable. Supplies were also purchased from Australia whenever necessary. Very recently the Australian Services Canteens Organisation group in Vietnam has been reinforced. I shall examine the matter again to see whether there is a need to do something more.

page 1856

QUESTION

PRESIDENT JOHNSON WAY

Mr DEVINE:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a report that the Sydney streets along which the President of the United States of America will travel on Saturday will be renamed President Johnson Way, for that day. Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the streets to be renamed is the cherished and revered Anzac Parade, a memorial drive dedicated to Australians who have paid the supreme sacrifice in defence of this country, and the name of which has never been changed on the occasions when many other distinguished visitors, including Her Majesty the Queen, drove along it? Will the Prime Minister use whatever persuasive influence he might have with the New South Wales Government to see that the proud name of Anzac Parade is not altered either on next Saturday or on any other occasion?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The name “ Anzac ‘” is, 1 am sure, imperishably enshrined in the minds of the people of this country. I hardly imagine that it will be obliterated from their consciousness by the fact that the New South Wales Government, as a gesture of courtesy and in order to assist those who wish to be present along the prescribed route, has made the proposal mentioned by the honorable gentleman. This was net a matter that came to my knowledge as the representative of the Commonwealth. I believe that all of us, if we use our good sense in the matter, will appreciate that the action proposed is being taken with the best of intentions. For my part, I believe that what the honorable gentleman suggests is indicative of a carping attitude to the proposal.

page 1857

QUESTION

NIGERIA

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address to the Minister for External Affairs a question about Nigeria. I ask: Can he confirm that since May of this year an estimated 7,000 Ibo tribespeople have been killed in Nigeria, 4.000 of them in the last two weeks? Has the bloody violence in Nigeria attracted any attention al the United Nations? Finally, is there any initiative that this country could take to enable a representative of the International Red Cross to enter Nigeria to fit himself to give an impartial account of the distress of the people there?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for External Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not able to confirm the figures cited by the honorable gentleman, lt is common knowledge, of course, that in the sad events in Nigeria there have been killings and that some of those killings seem to have been indiscriminate and almost purposeless. We all regret this very sad state of affairs in a country of the Commonwealth of Nations. So far as I am aware, no specific reference to the internal conditions in Nigeria has been made in the discussions at the General Assembly of the United Nations. ] shall examine the question of whether this is a sort of situation in which the International Red Cross could exercise helpful influence.

page 1857

QUESTION

HOUSING ESTIMATES

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Will he confirm that the Housing

Industry Association requested the Government to publish a White Paper on housing including long term forecasts of requirements over the next 10 years? Did h; repiy that in the Government’s firm view it was not the task of the Commonwealth to forecast housing demand? If he confirms the Association’s request and his reply in those terms, will he explain why the Department of National Development prepared, and the late Senator Sir William Spooner, who was Minister at the time, published, in December 1956, a 40 page document on the housing situation containing 17 tables showing estimated needs in the 1960’s and, indeed, as far ahead as 1980? Will he explain also why he believes that the Commonwealth should not make plans in a field iri which it provides all the public funds through the State Housing Commissions, Housing Trust and Housing Department and its own War Service Homes Division and in which it regulates nearly all the private funds under its constitutional powers over banking and insurance?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– It would take quite some time to reply adequately to the question asked by the honorable gentleman. The social and economic consequences of housing arc so important in the Australian scene that I feel I should give the House some facts. What the honorable gentleman is implying in his question is that the Government has very little concern with the level of housing and has brushed aside the request which has come to it from this particular housing body to which the honorable gentleman referred. The facts are quite the reverse. Since coming to office in 1949 the Liberal-Country Party Government has devoted a great deal of attention to housing.

What has been achieved in the field of housing is one of the most remarkable achievements to be seen in any country. Just on 50 per cent, of the houses to be found in Australia today have been constructed since this Government came to office at the end of 1949. Australia has the highest percentage of owner occupancy in the world. In the last five years, dwellings have been built in Australia at the rate of one for every two persons added to the Australian population. Our rate of housing construction more than matches, on a per capita basis, that of the United Kingdom or of the United States and has provided us- I repeat, with one of the highest housing standards in the world.

With that as background, let me come to the particular matter to which the honorable gentleman referred. The Government is asked to give this Association an estimate which it may regard as a reasonably precise estimate of housing programmes over the next 10 or 15 years. The Vernon Committee of Economic Inquiry said that estimates of economic trends over such a period were quite useless and misleading. That is one recommendation of the Vernon Committee which, from experience. I would endorse. The honorable gentleman referred me to a paper by a former Minister responsible for housing. It is arising out of experience in the administration of housing by Sir William Spooner and since that we have taken our present view. The Government has acted and will continue to act in order to maintain the level of housing at a rate consistent with the state of the industry and the needs of our people. But to give forecasts we must be able to peer into the mists of the future and say what the economic factors are likely to be in the years ahead, bearing in mind that the two principal respects in which housing will increase are not within the direct control of this Government. Eighty-five per cent, of cottages and flats-

Mr Uren:

Mr. Speaker, I move: “That the Prime Minister be granted an extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member for Reid is out of order.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– This kind of thing is not necessary. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a highly provocative question and I will give the answer in my own terms.

Mr Curtin:

– Why not write a letter to the Deputy Leader?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I want the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith to get into the act, also. This is not a private discourse between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and myself. Eighty-five per cent, of housing is provided by private enterprise as a result of literally tens of thousands of individual decisions by Australian citizens. We do what we can to see that where finance is required the credit institutions have finance adequate for the purpose. There have been occasions when it seemed that the rate of construction was getting ahead of resources and when we put something of a brake on the rate of construction. The other respect in which decisions are in hands other than ours concerns the proportion of their loan funds which the States make available for housing purposes. At the last meeting of the Commonwealth with the States, we asked them to apply as much of the loan allocation to housing purposes as they could. This year, SI 20 million will go from loan funds for housing purposes. We undertook in the letter to which the honorable gentleman refers to make available to the industry all the information that we have in our possession and to assist it as best we could to do its own forward planning. So we have not brushed this request aside. We have tried to be quite realistic about it and, in consequence of the actions of this Government, Australia enjoys one of the highest standards of housing to be found anywhere.

page 1858

QUESTION

HOSPITAL FINANCES

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Health. 1 refer to the submission in May last by the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes National Council of Australia. 1 ask: Is it a fact that the proposal sought an increase in the Government’s contribution of $2 per patient per day? As this apparently could nol be included in the J 966 Budget, will the honorable gentleman keep the Council’s submission under constant review, in view of the higher charges now applying generally for hospitalisation?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The submissions by the organisation mentioned by the honorable member were given most careful attention by the Government at the time it considered its Budget. I will certainly give the honorable member an undertaking that they will be kept firmly in mind when any review of the national health scheme is in prospect.

page 1858

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Interior a question. As a service to the electors for the forthcoming general election, will he initiate an advertising campaign over television and radio giving information as to the closing date for enrolment and for the acceptance of applications for postal votes, and also giving notice of the new system of voting for the extraordinary Senate elections in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for the Interior · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– A similar question was put to me last week. I promised then that I would see that publicity was undertaken to assist the electors to become enrolled before the writs were issued, and informing them of the form of voting for the Senate elections. I said also that the form of voting for the Senate elections would differ between States where there was more than one Senate vacancy to be filled and States where only one Senate vacancy was to be filled. We will undertake a publicity campaign and I hope it will assist to meet the objectives that the honorable member has in mind.

page 1859

QUESTION

EXTRADITION

Mr KILLEN:

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and refers to the meeting of Law Ministers here in Canberra and in London on the subject of extradition. Did the Law Ministers decide upon a common definition of the term “ political offence “? If so, what was the definition? In view of the importance of the legislation and its complexity, will the honorable gentleman agree to hold over the two bills relating to extradition until we all come back here next year?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Attorney-General · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– No definition of “ political offence “ was decided upon at the meeting of the Law Ministers. The reason for this is that the meeting decided that each Parliament will itself legislate to give effect to the scheme. Each Parliament will, therefore, apply to the term a definition that it chooses. In point of fact, the term speaks for itself. If the honorable gentleman will look to the list of offences, he will find that a political offence as we would understand it is not included. As to the second part of the question, namely, whether the legislation could stand over until we all come back, I can assure the honorable gentleman that I am very anxious to have the legislation passed this session. At present there is a serious gap in our legislation covering the extradition of offenders to stand trial in Australia or for the return of offenders from Australia to stand trial in a country where an offence has been committed. Because of that gap I am anxious that the legislation should be passed. Great care has been put into drafting the Bill and when the honorable gentleman reads it I am sure he will come to the conclusion, as I have done, that it should be passed this session.

page 1859

QUESTION

VISIT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the coming visit to Australia of that wonderful man - the world’s most powerful man - President Johnson, whose country has given immeasurable help to Australia, particularly in the development of our natural resources, such as lead, zinc, bauxite, copper and tin, 1 ask: Before the departure of President Johnson, a Texan, as a gesture of courtesy from the Australian people will the Prime Minister present him with a gold-framed verse of Henry Lawson’s poem “ A Word to Texas Jack “? I quote the last two lines of that poem -

And when they go, as like as not, we find we’re taken in.

They’ve left behind nolearnin’ - but they’ve carried off our tin.

Or would the Prime Minister care to substitute for the last two lines the following? -

And when they’ve gone, as like as not, we find that when they go,

They didn’t leave us eddication - but they touched us for our dough.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The honorable gentleman is apparently not only deficient in courtesy but he has very little appreciation of what America meant to this country when we were under threat of invasion during the last war.

page 1859

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr TURNBULL:

– I address a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister know that many Australian woolgrowers are now selling their product by private contract in preference to the auction system? Can he say whether private contract sales of wool are justified by a greater net return to the grower, and if so can this be expected to continue indefinitely or will it eventually undermine the traditional system of wool selling to the detriment of the marketing of this most valuable product?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The matter of private selling in the wool industry has been preoccupying the Australian Wool Board and the wool organisations so much so that the Wool Board has appointed a special committee of investigation comprising growers, wool selling brokers and wool buyers. When it brings its report to the Board it will be studied and any action taken thereon will be referred to the Australian Wool Industry Conference for consideration. That is the position at present.

page 1860

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS

Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. As there has not been any administrative act or, so far as I know, any legislation of this Parliament to cover the matter, does the constitutional right of the Commonwealth over offshore waters where the Esso Exploration Australia Inc. and Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. oil and gas deposits have been discovered remain inviolate? Is this field entirely within the province of the Commonwealth Government? If the constitutional right does remain inviolate why does the Commonwealth Government stand by and allow the disgraceful wrangle to proceed in Victoria between the Victorian State Government and this joint company, thus causing a long delay in making gas available to the consumers in Victorian cities, and probably in other States, and a delay in making available, at half the present cost at least, nitrogenous fertilisers to the people of Australia?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As I think the honorable gentleman knows, there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the six States that they will not contest one another’s claims to ownership of oil discovered in the off shore area. Resulting from this agreement, there will not be any legal case to decide ownership. Joint legislation will be introduced to give effect to the agreement. Unfortunately, the problems involved in drafting this joint legislation, which I am assured is the most difficult drafting job that has been undertaken since the Constitution, has prevented the possibility of putting the agreement into effect during the current sessional period. We are meeting the State Mines Ministers in Melbourne next Monday and some further tidying up will be undertaken. I can assure the honorable gentleman that the delay In drafting the joint Commonwealth-State legislation is not delaying agreement as to price. The price is being negotiated between one series of people who own the gas and another series of people who want to use the gas. It is a matter entirely for ‘those two bodies to come to a reasonable agreement.

page 1860

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– On 12th

October, the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) asked me a question without notice which, amongst other matters, referred to annual leave in the Commonwealth Public Service. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) also showed interest in this question. In reply to the honorable member I said that I expected a decision to be reached for announcement before Parliament rises. The subject to which he referred had been brought before the Government by a deputation representing the Australian Council of Trades Unions and Public Service organisations, and was at the time under active consideration. I indicated that a Cabinet submission had been prepared and was about to be considered. Last August I received a deputation of representatives of the A.C.T.U. and Public Service organisations. The deputation presented to the Government a comprehensive case advocating that annual leave in (he Commonwealth Public Service be increased by one week, that is, fromthree to four weeks. I remind the House that in October 1965 a union deputation presented a similar case to the Government and the proposal was not then accepted.

Coinciding with the Government’s consideration of the proposal presented by the deputation, an amendment was moved by the Opposition in another place proposing an identical increase in Public Service annual leave. The case presented by the union deputation and the amendment submitted by the Opposition were carefully considered. It was indicated by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gorton) in the debate in Parliament on 1 3th October that the Government was not prepared to accept the proposal that officers of the Commonwealth Service should have their annual leave entitlement

Increased from three to four weeks. In reaching this conclusion on this occasion the Government has had full regard to all the matters raised in the submissions of the joint union deputation and to factors such as the additional staff required if annual leave was to be increased to four weeks; the need for a substantial increase in recruitment of staff - some 5,000 or 6,000 - the additional burden on the labour market that would be imposed by attempts to recruit staff; that inability to recruit additional staff would impose excessive overtime on existing staff, and the repercussions which would inevitably be felt throughout the whole of the community if there was a grant of four weeks annual leave to Commonwealth employees.

I might say that immediately the debate in the Senate took place 1 sent a telegram to Mr. Monk, President of the A.C.T.U. and the leader of the deputation, informing him of the Government’s decision. I wrote to him in more detail on the following day and this letter was delivered to Mr. Monk at his home. I understand there has been some criticism of the way in which the Government announced its decision on this occasion. In view of the amendment moved by the Opposition in the Parliament, I believe it to have been proper to state Government policy to the Parliament in the first instance. The deputation which J received had, of course, a right to be fully informed of the Government’s decision, and this has been done.

page 1861

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · Farrer · LP

– I move -

That Standing Order No. 103 (II o’clock rule) be suspended for the remainder of the session.

In proposing this motion let me say that I am mindful of the desirability of completing each day’s business within the normal daily sitting hours of the Parliament, and I certainly trust that our sittings will not be unduly extended during the remainder of the present sessional period. However, as a contingency against the need for legislation to be handled later than usual on any particular sitting day during the next fortnight, the Standing Order in relation to the introduction of new business after 1 1 o’clock should not preclude us from handling essential legislation which is programmed for passage through this House on a particular day.

When this motion is proposed it is usual for Opposition members to say: “ Why can we not sit another week?” We were accustomed to hear that from the former honorable member for East Sydney. Many honorable members have been inclined to say: “ We are prepared to wait here for another week and pass the legislation during the norma] sitting hours “. However, it is obvious that this cannot be done on this occasion. We have agreed to and accepted 26th November as the date of the election. This means that the House must be dissolved on, I think, the Monday following the last sitting on Friday of next week. There are writs to be issued and rolls to be closed. I am sure it is obvious to all honorable members that we cannot sit later than the Friday of next week. lt may be said that we should not have had the two recesses of one week each during the current sessional period but I do not think honorable members on either side of the House would agree with that. We have a long standing agreement that we should sit for three weeks and have one week off. We are told very often that in this place we live in an ivory tower. The week we have off enables honorable members to return to their electorates, to undertake engagements and to accept opportunities to address meetings which otherwise they would not be able to do if our sittings were continuous.

Although we have a quite considerable and formidable list of bills in front of us for the final two weeks of this sessional period, I point out that many of the subject matters covered by those bills were discussed during (he Budget debate and during the debate on the Estimates. A very considerable time was set apart for the Budget debate and a full three weeks was set apart for the debate on the Estimates. So honorable members on both sides of the House have had ample opportunities to take part in the debates. I think the gag was applied on only two occasions during the debate on the Estimates. So I feel that there has been ample opportunity for honorable members to take part in debate and discussion. Of course, it is true to say that there is .io national parliament in the world in which it will ever be possible for everyone in the

House to speak on everything that he wants to speak on for an unlimited time. Whichever party has been in control of the House, there has always been the time when they have had to bring in this motion in order to ensure that their legislation goes through, particularly in circumstances like the current case where we have a deadline and must finish important legislation by that date.

Honorable members will realise that during the autumn I brought in a motion to suspend this Standing Order but did not have to use it. I only hope that the same might be true on this occasion, although perhaps it is a little too much to ask. But certainly 1 give the Opposition my assurance that, so far as possible, 1 shall try to bring in important matters of legislation during the earlier hours of sitting and leave the later hours, if they have to be used, for points of a minor nature which are perhaps consequential on the Budget or other amendments. However, this is not always easy to do. T conclude by repeating that every step will be taken to ensure that, wherever possible, the utmost business of the House is completed within the normally accepted parliamentary hours.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The Opposition opposes this motion which is premature. We do not oppose it because we assert that the House should not sit next Friday; we do not oppose it because we assert that the House should not have risen for the two weeks that it has risen since the Budget was presented; and we do not oppose it because we assert that Parliament ought to sit next Saturday, Sunday and Monday. We oppose it because there is nothing on the notice paper to show that the House cannot despatch all its business in the three sitting nights this week, the three sitting nights next week and the two additional days on which it will be sitting, the Friday of this week and the Friday of next week. 1 would recall to honorable members that the Opposition did not oppose the sitting last Friday. It does not propose to oppose the sittings on Friday this week or Friday of next week. Accordingly, it should be possible to despatch all the business on the notice paper during normal sitting hours. No notice has been given on the notice paper that other bills will come in. It may be - it is probable - that other bills will come in. but there is no notice of them. Accordingly, this motion is premature, to say the least.

The consequence of this motion is that the debate on a bill may commence after 1 1 o’clock at night. There is no need to move or to carry this motion in order to complete the debate on any bill upon which the debate has commenced before 1 1 p.m. It is possible to go all night, until dawn or afterwards, in completing the debate on any bill where the debate has commenced before 1 1 p.m. without suspending the Standing Orders in any way. If this motion is carried it merely enables the Government to bring on a bill for debate for the first time after 1 1 o’clock at night. This is not a reasonable hour to commence the debate on any matter. It scarcely lies in our mouths to say that any matter that the House would be debating is a trivial one. However trivial the matter may be, it is not appropriate to start the debate on it after 1 1 o’clock at night. Honorable members are not best qualified to commence a debate or to continue it after that hour. The public rarely appears in the galleries after 11 o’clock at night, and listeners are deprived of the joys of listening to debates after 1 1 o’clock at night.

I have mentioned that it is possible to deal with all matters on the notice paper within the expected normal silting hours, commencing the debate on all of these before 11 p.m. There are 22 bills on the notice paper. Several of these, however, would be debated jointly, such as the three on the poultry industry, three on pensions for orphans of public servants, parliamentarians and members of the forces, others relating to m intenance orders for those in the divorce courts and for Commonwealth employees in lesser courts, and the extradition bills. Here are four groups of bills which will be debated together. I should think that none of the bills on the notice paper need a protracted debate. The one which is most likely to do so is the Public Service Bill, which deals with long service leave, annual leave, equal pay and the creation of new Government departments. This is the only bill on which we would expect a debate of any length at all.

Mr Lucock:

– Nobody is questioning this. The Minister said that this was only in case of an emergency.

Mr Bryant:

– The honorable member for Lyne knows thai it is disorderly to interject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Wills should heed that reminder himself.

Mr WHITLAM:

Mr. Speaker, your Deputy who interjected is the one who will have to stay in the chair if you do not choose to do so. It is for that reason that I heeded his interjection. All I am saying in answer to the honorable member is that the motion is premature at this stage. Most of the other bills are not technical ones; they are bills which in the American Congress or the British Parliament would have been discussed in advance by a committee. They take very little time of the Parliament in the House or in the Committee stage. One of the 22 bills will not come on at all. I refer to the Repatriation Bill which came from the Senate. However, another bill has come in on message in substitution for that. So it is quite clear that the House can get through the 22 bills, particularly as they will boil down to 15 debates only, under the present Standing Orders by commencing the debate before 1 1 o’clock at night. Accordingly, Sir, we oppose the motion today.

Motion (by Mr. Fairbairn) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question put -

That the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 26

Majority . . 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1863

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT ASSISTANCE DILL (No. 2) 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15th September (vide page 931), on motion by Mr. Howson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- The measure before the House is a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States of New South Wales and Queensland for the purpose of compensating those States for loss of revenue due to the effects of drought. I am sure honorable members will appreciate that this is, in effect, the culmination of the various efforts that have been made by the Government to deal with problems caused by the disastrous drought in New South Wales and Queensland. Members will recollect that the effects ofthe drought commenced to be felt aslong ago as about July of 1965, and that after a good deal of prodding in this Parliament from members of the Opposition–

Mr Nixon:

– Nonsense.

Mr POLLARD:

– And to a minor extent from members of the corner party which supports the Government, and also - perhaps this was the most effective - after considerable prodding in editorials in practically every country journal in New South Wales and Queensland, the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Menzies, made a statement about the matter in this Parliament.

Suggestions had been made that the most effective way of immediately alleviating the distress of primary producers in the drought stricken areas would be to devise some means of making direct grants to the persons immediately concerned. But this did not appeal to the Government; the Prime Minister said that he and his Government believed that the method of distributing the financial relief should be left to the State Governments concerned. Finally a promise was extracted from him that this Government would underwrite any budgetary difficulties experienced by the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland as a result of their granting drought relief assistance. This sounded all right in its way, and 1 agree that generally speaking State Governments provide the best administrative machinery for distributing drought relief, bushfire relief and the like. But the Opposition has quarrelled with the Government because these funds have been devoted to purposes of which this Parliament, and perhaps even the Government, have not been given any very detailed or satisfactory account.

Although the Commonwealth is recompensing the New South Wales and Queensland Governments for very substantial sums of money, grants to individual sufferers have amounted to only about £5 million for relief of hardship suffered in a disaster which has been rightly described as a drought disaster of a major character. Now we have been given a kind of wash-up account by the Minister for Air (Mr. Howson), who delivered the second reading speech on the Bill. He told us that the measure will make provision for the payment to the Government of New South Wales of $8 million and to the Government of Queensland of $2,750,000. The Minister outlined the purposes for which these moneys will be used. He said -

The amounts payable under the present Bill would be additional to those paid in accordance with the earlier legislation and would increase total estimated Commonwealth payments for drought assistance in 1966-67 to $35 million, of which S23 million would be payable lo New South Wales and $12 million to Queensland.

Then we have the rub. He said -

The additional assistance of $10,750,000 will be made available in the form of non-repayable grants.

But made available in the form of nonrepayable grants to whom? Did the State Governments of New South Wales and Queensland make available non-repayable grants to any primary producers in those States?

All that statement tells us is that this Bill authorises the sum of §10,750,000 to be made payable to the Governments of New South Wales and of Queensland and that they will not have to make any repayment to the Commonwealth. There is no statement that the sum involved is to recoup the Government of New South Wales for any free grants that it made to the drought sufferers in that State. The plain fact is that this grant may be made in order to recoup to the New South Wales Government funds that it may have made available to some drought sufferers in the form of loans at a very low concessional rate of interest. It may be that through the Lands Department or some other instrumentality loan funds were made available to drought sufferers at as low a rate of interest, perhaps, as 2i per cent, lt may well be that the repayments due to the Commonwealth Government from the State Government are in the nature of loan moneys repayable at 4 per cent, or 5 per cent. Who knows? We have not been told. In that case it does mean of course that those primary producers who obtained loans at 23 per cent, interest in a market usually demanding 6 per cent, or 7 per cent, were given, in effect, a concession by means of a lower interest rate. But we do not know. We are not told.

What we do know is that there is a continuing need in New South Wales and Queensland for the provision of loan funds to assist people who have been harshly hit by the drought. Their financial stringency is not yet over. We have had a wide range of discussions in this Parliament and we have had affirmations by Government members and supporters that in effect everything in the garden is lovely for the farming community. We have read editorials criticising the Government in the publications of various organisations of the farming community. Only recently, when this criticism became more articulate than usual, the Government was confronted with the task of trying to placate these people. First, we had a reference to the possibility of the

Government getting a consortium of all the private banks to provide money at low interest rates to assist the farmers. But that scheme did not get anywhere. It did not get off the ground. It was only a placard. The next thing we had was the case put by honorable members on the Government side regarding a reference to what were called Term Loan Funds. But, after all, Term Loan Funds did not amount to much, and for them the unfortunate borrowing primary producers paid as much as they would normally pay for overdraft loans.

Then we had a new terminology hatched up. There came to light what are known as Farm Loan Funds. There was a statement on this particular aspect of the Government’s measure, and it highlights how ineffective and how deceitful the Government is. Government members will come along one duy and talk about their good feelings and intentions regarding the hard pressed primary producers of Australia; it will be emphasised on both sides of the Parliament that today farming in Australia is capital intensive and that the Government is going to do something about it. But what do we find? Let us consider this statement in “ Incentive “ -

But the main outlines of the plan are now clear. As in the case of the Term Loan Funds, some two thirds of the money to go into the Farm Loan Funds- -

They are two funny terms - “ Term Loan Funds “ and “ Farm Loan Funds “. will come from a release of trading banks’ cash from the Statutory Reserve Deposits. The period of the loans to be made will be rather longer, in principle, than the Term Loan Funds (of which some 34 per cent, are presently devoted to Rural Purposes). The rate of interest will also be marginally less than that for the Term Loan Funds.

So under the new idea of a Farm Loan Fund the producer was going to get something marginally less. It would probably be more appropriate to say fractionally less, because this indicates something much smaller. The article went on -

The Prime Minister said that “ the rates of interest on loans from the new Farm Loan Funds would maintain the preference already extended to primary producers and would fall within the range of rates currently charged to primary producers on overdraft loans.” As the Term Loan Fund is marginally higher than the overdraft for rural producers, the Farm Loan Fund rate will presumably be marginally less than the Term Loan Fund rate. But there is not going to be any nonsense about lending to farmers on 12 year terms at 4 per cent.

I understand that there was a yike - I suppose that is a coarse term for a quarrel - between the two Government parties at party meetings about the loans. There was a yike about providing loans to farmers at A- per cent. The article continued -

In all, therefore, the Farm Loan Funds do not amount to anything markedly different from what would have been achieved merely by extending the Term Loan Fund arrangements. While something new has been devised for farmers (is it possible to think of any more concessions for these already extraordinarily privileged producers?)-

I do not say that. That was said by the writer of this article. I do not think these people are privileged at all - it is essentially a piece of window dressing.

I agree with that last statement. The whole subject of the availability of loan moneys and capital for development of farms, and capital to ensure adequate and fast recovery from drought problems, has been fiddled with over the past 18 months. Nothing of a concrete, sensible nature has yet eventuated.

I noticed some reference in a speech of the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, in 1965, or maybe it was in the speech of the then Treasurer - it was in a speech made by one of the Ministers anyhow - to expenditure on farm development. We have a Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, lt commenced operations in 1960 with a flourish of trumpets from this Government. Where has that scheme got to and what has the Bank done? I was informed by the grapevine that there was a proposal to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 and to give the Development Bank some real form of loan powers in order to enable it to lend more generously than it has done. But this scheme never got off the ground. The Parliament was informed by the Treasurer that it was not thought necessary to do this; that the Government would intimate to the Development Bank that it desired the Bank to lend more money and, in effect, be more generous than it had been. How could the Government do this? That statement by the Treasurer was not accompanied by a statement saying that adequate capital would be found for the Development Bank. So what does the Government want Term Loan Funds and Farm Loan Funds for - there are two entirely distinct forms of terminology used - when the Treasurer has told us that he has instructed the Development Bank to deal adequately with the problems? There has been a game of deceit played through and through. The rural producers of Australia have been deceived throughout the whole term of office of this Government. This is the sort of hocus pocus by which this Government has done this.

The Opposition is supporting the measure before the House. Its aim is to provide funds for the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland to recoup expenditure by them in order to alleviate drought problems, lt is altogether inadequate. We are not furnished with any detailed information whatsoever as to how the New South Wales Government’s deficit was accumulated. We are told only that the money was utilised in order to cope with the various problems created by the drought. Apart from that, we know nothing. It may well be that the Treasury has been furnished with a detailed statement, but surely the members of this Parliament are entitled to a detailed schedule showing exactly how every dollar was spent. Some of it may have been spent by the New South Wales Government or by the Queensland Government on matters which were entirely extraneous to the problem of alleviating the horrors of drought. Expenditure which in your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could be considered entirely justifiable for the alleviation of drought might, in my mind or even in the mind of the Minister assisting the Treasurer, be challengable. We might deem it expenditure on a normal State activity. Perhaps the Government of New South Wales considered that the depreciation on trains carting water to farmers in drought stricken areas was a justifiable charge as coming within this scheme. It might be argued, for instance, that so many dozen more new axle boxes had to be fitted to locomotives because of this additional traffic. All sorts of things could crop up. I indict the Government for the lack of information given to us on this matter. I hope that in due course somebody will bring the Government to its senses and ensure that this sort of thing does not occur again.

The drought had been upon us for six months before anything at all was done. In the meantime, no doubt many men suffered severely, some of them even losing their properties. Worse still, some of them may have bonded themselves into slavery by borrowing money at very high second mortgage interest rates from private money lenders. The Opposition supports the measure.

Mr IAN ALLAN:
Gwyder

.- I represent an area which has recently suffered from two years of the most severe drought conditions ever encountered in Australia. The meteorological records show that the drought of 1965 and 1966 was more severe than the previously recorded peak drought of 1901. Australia has experienced some great social changes in the period since 1901. For example, transport facilities have improved enormously. Again, the improvements effected on properties in the last few years in particular have transformed the rural picture. Far more dams and far more fences have been provided; better roads have been constructed and much safer conditions generally have been provided for stock and farming activities than ever existed before. Much of this improvement ‘has been a direct consequence of the policies initiated by this Government. For instance, taxation concessions introduced in the last 15 years have led directly to the improvement of rural properties. Lending facilities, too, have even been improved enormously since 1950.

The creation of the Development Bank was due entirely to the initiative of this Government. The Development Bank was something novel in Australia and something unique in the world. Its operations have been most effective. Anyone who questions its success, as I understood the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) to do, does not know his business. Such a man ought to get round the country a bit and see for himself just how successful the Development Bank has been in uplifting the earning capacity and improving the security of primary producers.

To broaden this credit field, we have more recently encouraged private banks to enter into long term lending. They are doing so, gradually. In fact, I think they are doing it rather too slowly, but at least they are moving into the field and broadening the opportunity for the borrower to obtain the kind of accommodation he needs to improve his earning capacity for his own good and in the interests of the nation.

Because of this drought, the Government introduced a system of drought relief loans. These were made available through the State Governments, but the money was provided by the Commonwealth Government. They have helped many primary producers who otherwise could have not obtained any credit at all, to remain on their properties and ride out the storm. That action by the Commonwealth Government was unprecedented in the history of Federation, lt was also unprecedentedly generous in its terms, as the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, claimed it to be when introducing the scheme. This is freely acknowledged by all who have benefited from the scheme - the farmers who have received the loans and the townspeople who supply goods and services to the primary producers. The money was made available at a time when it was sorely needed.

The Government has also made money available through the State Governments for the maintenance of the economies of rural towns so that those who were thrown out of work as a direct consequence of the drought might be able to obtain employment close to their homes, in their local towns. A good deal of work has been done and is still going on in country towns as a result of the initiative and practical approach of this Government. It is easy to be wise after the event and to say that the farms generally in the drought affected areas were far too vulnerable to a prolonged dry season. They were too vulnerable. But we did not know that two years aso. At that time we were rather pleased and satisfied with the way things were going. Everyone acknowledged the progress that had been made on the land up to that point of time. It was not until after the drought struck that we realised that insufficient reserves were held by primary producers and that, as a result, they could not cover themselves for such a prolonged period.

Now that this weakness has been revealed, we should take urgent steps to ensure that these circumstances do not apply again. The weaknesses that have been revealed lie in such fields as extension services. We obviously need better kinds of extension services - the kinds that will build up the defences of primary producers against the onset of similar disasters in the future. We also need the provision of yet a further type of credit accommodation, a type of farm improvement loan such as has been so successful in the United States of America under their Farmers Home Administration. We need more assistance for conservation. We need taxation concessions to encourage more conservation of fodder and water on the farms. In particular, we must devote more attention and money to thi conservation of water in those areas o’ Australia which suffer from highly variable rainfall. It is quite futile to spend large sums on the construction of big dams in areas which already have a good supply of water and to claim that by so doing we are doing something to avoid the periodic onset of drought. We have to move into the dry areas - the drought susceptible areas - to cure the chronic problem of drought in Australia. It is of no use to build dams in Tasmania, for example, or” along the coast where the rainfall is fairly good. We must move into the drier parts of Australia and make them equally secure for water supplies. lt is of no use blaming the farmers for the losses that they have suffered during the drought over the last two years. By and large, the farmers have done a magnificent job, and they have been aided in their endeavours by the policies of this Government. I repeat: Now is our opportunity to improve the position of the farmers by providing a better form of extension services than we have had in the past. We should also provide improved credit facilities similar, as I have suggested previously, to those that have been so successful in the United States of America. We should provide supervised credit. This ought to be married with extension services in order to improve farm operations by ensuring better budgeting and better development of properties so as to make them more secure against adverse seasons and improve their yield. We need to give more attention generally to the problems of water and soil conservation.

The policies enunciated by the former Prime Minister in aiding the States by means of these grants and also drought relief loans, as well as the policies introduced in the last Budget, have been very gratifying to me personally. They follow very closely the recommendations made by the Australian Country Party’s Standing Committee on Drought Policy. This Committee was established two years ago last April, before most people in Australia were aware that there was a drought. Members of the Federal organisation of the Australian Country Party and of the Country Party in the New South Wales and Queensland Parliaments decided that no-one in Australia had given sufficient attention to this chronic phenomenon of drought and concluded that because we held so much at risk in Australia we should pay more attention to the devising of governmental policies that would alleviate or mitigate the effects of drought. We held a series of meetings and finally came forward with a few brief recommendations. In the main, these have been accepted and implemented by State and Federal Governments. The only outstanding matters are the few that I have enumerated today - further action on water and soil conservation measures, improved extension services and the initiation of a scheme for farm improvement loans. I hope it will not be long before we see policies designed to achieve these objectives introduced by this Government. I believe that the initiation of such policies would set the seal on the deliberations, the work and the recommendations of the Country Party’s Standing Committee on Drought Policy.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson.

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I support the remarks made by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) about the problem of ascertaining how the drought relief moneys allocated have been spent. Many honorable members have asked questions about the subject in this House and have been unable to get satisfactory answers. I believe that as it is the taxpayers’ money that is being spent on drought relief in New South Wales and Queensland, the Parliament should know the details of the way in which it is expended. One of the proposals supported by the Commonwealth Government with respect to the distribution of drought relief funds was the allocation of money to local government authorities to stimulate activity designed to minimise un employment in drought stricken areas. This was an admirable concept. As anybody familiar with dairying, sugar and cattle districts knows, a drought causes slackening of demand, the effects of which are self generating; so that, in a matter of a month or so, a cycle of unemployment sets in. I have been able to get from the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) details of the distribution of drought relief funds to local government authorities in Queensland. The Treasurer has made it very clear that no payments have been made by the Commonwealth direct to primary producers or local government authorities because this is the province of the State Governments. This is the matter on which I take issue with the Government concerning the methods by which these funds are distributed. In effect, the States are given a blank cheque in the distribution of funds in drought stricken areas. The Queensland Government has distributed the funds allocated in that State in a manner pretty closely approaching political blackmail.

Mr Nixon:

– Turn it up. What will the honorable member say next?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I shall give the honorable member for Gippsland the evidence in a moment. He, of course, knows everything that we on this side intend to say before we even say it, or so he would have us believe. The Treasurer has given me full details of applications for and the distribution of drought relief funds to local government authorities in Queensland. A total of 78 local government authorities north of the Brisbane complex applied for funds. It is a very strange coincidence that the Mackay local authority was the only authority that did not receive any funds. If one looks at the unemployment figures for that period during which these funds were distributed, one finds that Mackay had one of the highest rates of unemployment in Queensland. The Queensland Government was asked to provide information concerning the distribution of these funds, but it refused to divulge details. Indeed, it denied that the Mackay City Council had received nothing. Apparently, the Treasurer was unaware of this.

I doubt whether he would have released these figures had he known of it.

A large allocation was made to the Kingaroy Shire Council, for example. Admittedly, there were drought problems in the Kingaroy district, but they were very small compared to those in some of the sugar areas. A substantial allocation was made to the Warwick City Council. What drought problem was there in Warwick compared to the coastal towns in Queensland? I repeat that 78 local government bodies north of Brisbane applied for drought relief funds and that all except the Mackay City Council received assistance. lt was given nothing. This fact has been widely publicised in the Mackay area, to the great disgust of the various local government authorities there. Drought relief funds were allocated to the Pioneer Shire Council. The boundary of that Shire is only 250 yards from the city of Mackay, across the Pioneer River. The Pioneer Shire Council applied drought relief funds, provided at low rates of interest, for kerbing, channelling and road construction, but 250 yards away the city of Mackay got nothing. The logic is that at one spot the people were suffering from drought but 250 yards away across the river there was no drought. It is actions such as this which make one wonder how these public funds are distributed. Areas in the East Moreton district, such as Beaudesert, Maroochy, Gatton and Kilcoy, received drought relief, yet areas in the really drought stricken area of Mackay received nothing. The remarkable thing is that since these figures were made available the Queensland Government has suddenly found funds for the Mackay local authority for local government work but those funds have not come from the Commonwealth. They are State funds.

Mr Nixon:

– The honorable member is iiic greatest joke this place has ever known.

Dr PATTERSON:

– We have a nice big carpet waiting to be rolled out for the honorable member for Gippsland if he should come to Queensland during the election campaign. He was the biggest idiot to go up there in the last election. I agree with the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Ian Allan) that in areas where some programmes of water development can be implemented we should see that the tragedies of drought never occur again. I hope that he was not serious when be said that we should not build dams in coastal areas, because if he peruses the reports of Queensland and Commonwealth departments and of other drought mitigation bodies he will find that in times of drought the coastal areas have suffered the greatest losses in export income. These are the areas of high intensity cultivation. They are the areas which are most affected by the ravages of drought. I presume that in referring to coastal areas the honorable member meant areas in Tasmania and the safer areas of Victoria - certainly not areas of northern New South Wales and coastal Queensland.

On many occasions responsible authorities have stated that the coastal areas are the areas most affected by drought. For example, on many occasions Mr. Fletcher, Minister for Lands in the Queensland Government, has referred to the great losses suffered in proven areas of coastal Queensland. On the subject of water, Mr. Stuart Sloan, the late Director-General of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and one of Queenslands top authorities on the subject, said -

Might I add my opinion that, because of our limited water resources, 1 believe we will never regret building well-located irrigation schemes using suitable soils and good quality water, irrespective of what the economists may say. If this generation does not find it economic to build large water storages, the next generation will have to do so for survival.

On other occasions in this House 1 have said that one of the best ways of mitigating the effects of drought in the proven areas - that is, the high intensity areas of coastal New South Wales and Queensland, including the Darling area - is the strategic construction of large and small scale water storages. On several occasions I have reminded the House that although Queensland is the richest water State in the Commonwealth and produces the greatest export income surplus, of the $900 million whic.1 the Commonwealth has committed in the last 16 years for water conservation for purposes of power and irrigation, Queensland has received the grand total of nothing. This fact may be ascertained if one cares to read the Treasury papers relating to the distribution of funds for development projects. The construction of the Burnett, Pioneer, Burdekin, Fitzroy, Herbert and Gulf regions of large and small scale water storages along the lines of those constructed in southern Australia could make the greatest single contribution to minimising drought losses in these proven areas. For example, it has been calculated that the two year drought has meant a loss to the nation directly, through the fall in sugar income from the Burnett area, and indirectly, through the generated demand in the sugar towns of the Burnett area, of about $30. million. Yet still we argue about the cost of water storages in the Burnett area. The losses in production in the Fitzroy basin and in the Burdekin area have been tremendous. When one remembers that every seven years there have been two and a half years of drought in these areas, and has regard to the losses sustained in the intensive sugar areas, the beef and dairying areas and the grain and cotton growing areas, one can readily visualise the losses suffered by the country through drought.

Although such measures as those now under discussion will give some alleviation to some people, it must be remembered that in many areas they will cause only greater hardship in the long run. We are seeing this today in a minor degree as regards money being made available to beef cattle producers to restock with breeders. The price of breeders has reached the astronomical figure of £70 or £80 a head. Three years ago, when the export price of beef was around the same as it is today, the price of breeders was £45 or £50 a head. If producers do not buy stock they cannot earn sufficient income to pay their debts. In three or four years’ time when they are asked to repay their loans they might have to sell their progeny. If they cannot do so they will be in trouble.

I agree with the honorable member for Lalor that it is virtually impossible to ascertain the rate of interest which primary producers are required to pay on loans for drought relief purposes. I have tried in vain to obtain this information from the banks. Even the primary producers themselves are not sure what it is. Some rates are as high as 5 per cent, per annum. This kind of thing should not be tolerated. People who are down on their knees should not be asked to pay a high rate of interest for drought relief funds. It is certain that drought relief will be required in the future in those areas where we do not have river systems to enable us to implement drought mitigation projects. Those areas include the western areas of New South Wales and Queensland, the arid areas of the Northern Territory and the Kimberleys. It is logically impossible to devise any method of economic conservation that would avoid drought losses there, except perhaps for fodder conservation. In these areas we have the major problem of water. We will always have droughts and we will always have drought losses. I suggest that the Commonwealth adopt a more rigorous attitude to the distribution of its funds by the Stales to primary producers, because primary producers can find no logic or consistency - no rhyme or reason - in the distribution of the funds, and neither can the local authorities.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

.- It is not my intention to delay the House for very long, but I would like to congratulate the Government on the action it has taken, lt can always be said, of course, that the finance provided is not enough, but I think on this occasion the Commonwealth Government has shown an appreciation of the situation. I want to answer briefly the criticism that has come from the Opposition. The Commonwealth has been criticised, first, for literally giving the States a blank cheque. Honorable members on the Government side of the House have always said that local government authorities and State governments have a sense of responsibility. But we say also that they, being closer to the situation, have a better appreciation and a better understanding of the problems than the Commonwealth has. Therefore, it is only natural that the State governments should be given the finance and that the finance should be made available without any strings attached to it. The State governments know the problems far better than does the Commonwealth Government, which is much further away from them.

Mr Nixon:

– If I may interject for a moment, the honorable member for Dawson said that the Queensland Government was playing politics because it refused to give Mackay any money. Then he complained because it was given money in the end, after all.

Mr LUCOCK:

– I thank my distinguished friend from Gippsland for his interjection. The comment of the honorable member for Dawson was proved to be so completely wrong that it was not worth answering. I would like to repeat the words used by the Minister for Air and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr. Howson) in his second reading speech. He said -

As these grants are designed to assist the States in meeting the adverse effects of drought on their revenues, they do not carry any conditions as to the purposes for which they may be spent.

The Government’s decision to provide these additional grants reflects our recognition of th< budgetary problems confronting the States of New South Wales and Queensland this financial year due to the cumulative effects of the drought on their revenues.

He also said -

As the Treasurer indicated on an earlier occasion, the existing drought relief scheme is more liberal than any previous scheme of this kind in which the Commonwealth has participated. On top of the very large amount of assistance the Commonwealth is already making available to the States, the total commitment of about $35,000,000 in respect of drought assistance represents a generous contribution towards the States’ financial difficulties.

My major reason for speaking in this debate was, as I said, to congratulate the Government on this action and to point out that this is an acknowledgment by the Commonwealth Government of the problems confronting the States and the men on the land. Two factors that may seem a little contradictory are related in this problem. One is flood mitigation and the other is water conservation. 1 am very happy to learn that the Commonwealth Government has had and is continuing to have discussions with the States on the problem, i know that a proposition has been put to the Commonwealth Government and I expect that the Commonwealth will accept further responsibility in this matter. As m> colleague, the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. ian Allan) pointed out, the Australian Country Party appointed a committee to look into the problem. It consisted of members from the Federal Parliament and from the Parliaments of New South Wales and Queensland. The problem created by drought has many complexities and it can be solved only with the full co-operation of the Federal and State Governments, local organisations and groups and the primary producers. It will not be solved easily, because so many facets ranging from drought to flood require consideration. I congratulate the Commonwealth Government for the action it has taken. I hope that it will continue to cooperate with the States in seeking a solution to the problem.

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. Howson) read a third time.

page 1871

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL (No. 2) 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th August (vide page 66), on motion by Mr. Howson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- The title of the Bill is fairly limited, lt is a bill to amend the law relating to sales tax with respect to goods for use by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and household goods consisting of electric fans and air conditioners. The specific way in which the title is drawn limits our right to debate the whole subject of sales tax. We do not oppose the Bill. Our view is that sales tax ought progressively to be eliminated because it is an inequitable form of taxation and we welcome every move that removes the tax from some items.

The main items affected by the Bill are electric fans and air conditioners. I believe that this relaxation is being made primarily because my colleagues from Leichhardt (Mr. Fulton) and Herbert (Mr. Harding), both from Queensland, pointed out on the last occasion we had a wider debate on sales tax that there was no logic or equity in a system that exempted radiators used by people in cold climates but taxed air conditioning units and electric fans used by people in hot climates. The honorable members come from a part of Australia that is visited in winter by many other Australians from colder parts. At least in those areas an electric fan or an air conditioning unit is just as essential as a radiator or a space heating system is in some other and colder areas. The honorable members I have mentioned will add their word or two to the debate on the Bill. We offer no objection to its passage.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- I support the Bill. I represent the Mallee electorate covering the whole of northwestern Victoria, where we experience some very hot days. The weather can be very oppressive and the people in the electorate have become very interested in air conditioning. They are as interested in this equipment as are the honorable members from Queensland who were mentioned by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean). The proposal to reduce sales taxation to the extent provided in this legislation is greatly appreciated. I believe it will result in the selling of more air conditioning equipment which, in turn, will make life more congenial in the area I represent.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean). The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Actually, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Harding) and 1 suggested such sales tax reductions some time ago. I first brought this matter before the previous Treasurer, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt), and suggested it was quite unfair that people residing in southern areas should be able to purchase heating appliances subject to 2£ per cent, sales tax while people living in the hot northern areas should have to pay 124 per cent, sales tax on fans and refrigeration units designed to keep their homes cool. I would suggest that in my electorate are more hot places than elsewhere in Australia: The temperature is above 100 degrees for a considerable part of the year. When I asked the former Treasurer about reducing the sales tax he said consideration would be given to my proposal before the next Budget. The next Budget came, but there was no provision for a reduction in sales tax. I repeated my request to him. He said the matter had been considered along with other items but that Cabinet had decided not to do anything at that time. However, he said he would look at it again

Subsequently I asked the present Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) whether be would do anything about reducing sales tax on cooling equipment to assist people living in the hot areas. I thought I would be unsuccessful once more, but fortunately the Treasurer acceded to my request, so we have this legislation before us. I am pleased and happy to support it. However, I could not go along with what the Minister for Air and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr. Howson) said in his second reading speech, namely-

Electric radiators and various other room beaters of a kind used to provide household heating are taxed at 2i per cent, but electric fans and air conditioners have hitherto been taxed at 12i per cent. In recent years there has been an appreciable increase in the use of air conditioners. . . .

It seems to me that the Minister has just woken up. There has not been a big increase in the use of cooling equipment, because cooling equipment has always been regarded as a necessity in northern Queensland. Queensland has had the smallest increase of any State from our migration policy and, consequently, there has not been a big increase in the use of air conditioners as a result of the population increase. I do not think that this legislation is related to a greater usage of these items; I think the Treasurer recognised the unfairness to the people who had to pay I2i per cent, sales tax on cooling appliances while people elsewhere had to pay only 2i per cent, on heating appliances. I am glad, however, that he has introduced this legislation.

The proposal to exempt from sales tax goods purchased by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies for its own use and not for resale is also commendable. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill so I will not delay the House further. I thank the Treasurer for his consideration of our requests.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1873

SENATE ELECTIONS BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd September (vide page 1173). on motion by Mr. Anthony -

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, not only won more elections than any Prime Minister in our history but he caused more elections than any Prime Minister in our history. It is as a result of his latter proclivity that this Bill is before us. As a result of the double dissolution of the Parliament in 1951, there was a separate election for the Senate alone in 1953 and there was a separate election for the House of Representatives in 1954. The two Houses were brought into tandem again at a joint general election in 1955. There were joint triennial elections in 1958 and 1961. There was a premature election for the House of Representatives in 1963. There had then to be a separate Senate election in 1964. Next month there will be a separate election for the House of Representatives. There must again be an election for the Senate some time before 30th June 1968.

The Constitution provides, under section 15, that where a senator dies or retires his position is filled until the next general election by the Parliament of the State or, until the Parliament sits, by the Governor of the State which the deceased or retiring senator represented. Section 15 of the Constitution proceeds thus -

Al the next general election of members of [he Mouse of Representatives, or at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term.

At the House of Representatives election in 1963 a single senator was elected for the State of Queensland under this provision, but there were no vacancies to be filled in any other State. At the election next month, however, there will have to be elections of senators for four States, and in one State, Western Australia, there will have to be an election of two senators. The existing Senate Elections Act merely deals with the situation where there is a Senate casual vacancy to be filled at the time of a general election for both Houses. The first occasion when there was an election for the House of Representatives alone was in 1929. There were no casual vacancies then pending for the Senate, so the position did not arise. In 1963 on the second occasion when there was an election for the House of Representatives alone there was one Senate vacancy in one State. The position is more complicated now with four States having casual vacancies to be filled, and one of them having two vacancies to be filled. Accordingly, we have now been confronted with the situation where legislation has to be enacted.

Section 9 of the Constitution states -

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the methods shall bc uniform for all the Slides. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method, of choosing the senators for that Stale.

The States have passed no laws dealing with the filling of casual senate vacancies at an election for the House of Representatives when there is no election for the Senate. This Parliament did not do so for the 1929 or 1963 elections. In the extraordinarily complicated circumstances which have now arisen, it should do so. Probably no point would have been taken at this general election for the House of Representatives alone if there had been only one casual vacancy in each of the States concerned. There being two casual vacancies in one State, however, the Government very properly has introduced this Bill which provides that those casual vacancies shall be filled as the periodic vacancies at any Senate election are filled, namely, by the proportional system.

If the Government had not taken this action it is very likely that there would have been a court challenge on the position in Western Australia. There was a challenge in the High Court in May 1962 as a result of the Senate election in New South Wales at the end of 1961. There were two challenges in the High Court early in 1965 as a result of the Senate general election in Victoria and Tasmania at the end of the previous year. In view of the litigiousness which has followed recent Senate elections - the greatest degree of such litigation for over 50 years - it is very likely that there would have been a challenge to a procedure which was not based on legislation of the Parliament. This legislation takes a form which we approve.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I take this opportunity to support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) on the more technical legal aspect of this piece of legislation. The sad thing about this is that the Bill is before us because of the deaths of certain senators. This has caused the present casual vacancies. The passing of our colleagues emphasises once again the penalty of coming into the Parliament. !n the years that I have been here about 56 members of the Parliament have died. They have not all been old men by any means. Therefore, we regret the incidents which have made this legislation necessary.

It is probably unprecedented to have two casual vacancies in one State to be filled at the one election. This position has arisen in Western Australia. It is bad enough to have a casual vacancy in each of the States of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria but to have two in Western Australia is probably unprecedented in Federal politics. This Bill provides that where two or more casual vacancies are to be filled at a general election of the House of Representatives, the elections to fill those vacancies shall be conducted as one election. When one thinks of the reason for this legislation one almost wonders whether it is not time for a complete review of our system of voting for the Senate, and probably our system of voting generally. For several years now there has been confusion worse confounded over this matter.

I want especially to criticise the Government for having separated the election for the House of Representatives from the election for the Senate. For many years, election after election, the House of Representatives and the Senate have run together. The one allocation of funds met the total cost. The former Prime Minister, however, had a virtual obsession about double dissolutions. There was one in 1953 and an early dissolution of the House of Representatives in 1963. May I point out that he separated the election for the House of Representatives from the election for the Senate for purely political reasons. To my mind, this was completely irresponsible and unnecessary and showed an outrageous disregard for the cost involved. Now we have the spectacle of a House of Representatives election at the end of this year and a Senate election at the end of next year. Everyone who votes on 26th November at the next election will, with the addition of those who come on to the roll in the intervening 12 months, have to vote at the end of next year in the Senate election provided, of course, they are still alive. This is completely crazy, and the sooner the new Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt), with the assistance of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) who has to administer these acts, brings the two elections together again, the better it will be.

It is a wonder the people of Australia have not risen in revolt not only because they have to go to the polls twice as often as they did in the past but also because the cost involved is double what it need be. The cost of a Federal election - the Minister can correct me if I am wrong - is something like $1 million. So, with the present unsatisfactory setup, the country is burdened with that cost nearly every year. This is outrageous. That $1 million could be used to much better advantage in other directions where there are so many demands and needs of the people to be met. While supporting the Bill I express regret at the necessity for it in the sense that it has been brought about because of the unprecedented number of deaths of senators. Finally, I criticise the Government as strongly as I possibly can for not trying to bring together again the election for the House of Representatives and the election for the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1874

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14th September (vide page 878), on motion by Mr. McMahon -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- This Bill is largely a technical measure but it does allow the discussion of one or two very important principles of the overall financial control which a government is able to exercise in an economy. Historically, the Sinking Fund in Australia goss back to the prc-Financial Agreement arrangements of 1927 because the Commonwealth Sinking Fund was created in 1923 and prior to that there had been in existence a number of separate State Sinking Funds. Ultimately they were all merged into the one that is now known as the National Debt Sinking Fund, which this legislation seeks to alter to some considerable extent.

The idea of a Sinking Fund, of course, is to set aside sums to repay the public debt. A government borrows for capital purposes and, it is hoped, puts those sums into reproductive assets thereby increasing the capacity of the economy and so on. Nevertheless, the debt has to be repaid. The idea of a sinking fund apparently came about because there are periods of upsurge and downsurge in public borrowing and we should attempt to repay what we owe. The logic of a sinking fund rests on the fact that in essence the debt is progressively reduced. If the debt continues to increase the Sinking Fund transactions tend to have an atmosphere of book-keeping rather than reality. It seems almost that if the debt is rising the term “ sinking “ is a contradiction. Ultimately the same can be said of its being in the nature of a fund.

Although it is true that when an individual in the community takes out an insurance policy the insurance company can invest that sum on his behalf in something that it regards as a fund, it is extremely difficult in the final analysis to find the fund in which the Government invests when the soundest investment of all is in Government securities. It is because of those rather curious circumstances that in many respects a sinking fund is no longer a very great reality, T believe that in our Federal system there is still one role essentially that the Sinking Fund can play. It can still record the book-keeping in connection with the relative borrowings by the various States. Nowadays when the States borrow certain sums of money are advanced to them either from the revenues of the Commonwealth or at meetings of the Loan Council. The

Commonwealth agrees upon a sum and it makes itself responsible for raising on the loan market the sums which the States require. But whether the sums which are given to the States come either from the surplus revenues of the Commonwealth or from borrowings from the public by the Commonwealth, they are still treated the same way. They are subject to interest repayments by the States. I suggest that apart from the fact that a sinking fund still does the State’s book-keeping, there is doubt whether in essence it is really any more a sinking fund. Therefore it seems logical to me to make the amendments contained in the Bill.

In one or two of the remarks which were made by the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) we can see implied the realisation that this so-called fund is now very much different from what it originally was. The Treasurer’s remarks on this subject appear at page 876 of “ Hansard “. He said-

Before 1 proceed further I would ask honorable members to note the following main changes contemplated in the Bill -

The National Debt Sinking Fund will now receive sufficient funds to repay all debt of the Commonwealth for which it is responsible, other than debt raised to finance repayable advances, over a period of 25 years, instead of the 50 years provided for in the present Act.

That is done by setting aside an equal sum of 4 per cent, each year over the 25 years which, if we ignore the idea of compounding, would mean that the 25 amounts of 4 per cent, would leave a sum sufficient to repay the debt. His second observation was -

  1. To achieve this, the Commonwealth will pay flat annual Sinking Fund contributions of 4 per cent., compared with the initial contribution of only V per cent., which is payable on newly created debt under the present Act.

The third matter which he says the legislation encompasses is -

  1. Insofar as the reduced contributions to the Sinking Fund result in a net increase in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the annual appropriation to the Loan Consolidation and the Investment Reserve will be increased by a corresponding amount. That Reserve will therefore be better placed to assist the Sinking Fund with its debt management.

There are three aspects emergent in what the Treasurer said at that point: There is still the facade of a sinking fund; there is the reality now that to some extent the pure theory of the sinking fund is frustrated by the creation of the other vague body known as the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve account; and thirdly, there is an acknowledgment of the importance in overall financial arrangements of something which is called debt management.

Mr Kelly:

– What is the difference between a fund and an account?

Mr CREAN:

– I am reminded of the story that was once attributed to that great economic figure, Lord Keynes, when somebody asked him what was the difference between the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He said: “ You could best understand it if you thought of the Fund as a bank and the Bank as a fund “. It seems to me that to some extent that is the kind of logic that lies behind the National Debt Sinking Fund. I do not know what anybody really imagines has happened in the long and curious transactions of that Fund. The transactions are contained in quite complete detail in the National Debt Commission’s annual reports, the last of which, the 43rd annual report, was very recently tabled. The report shows that the National Debt Sinking Fund, after its operation of 40 years or so, has received into itself $1,093 million and has paid out $1,091 million, leaving a balance in the Fund of $2 million. Whether that gives any consolation to the public at large I do not know. Over the whole of the history of this curious organisation it has established a balance of $2 million. This simply highlights what I suggested earlier, that when we come to the transactions of the Government as a whole and transactions within Government departments, the idea of the Fund breaks down.

I rather think that the same situation will occur if we establish a national insurance fund as has been suggested by some people. Ultimately we would find that it would collect a lot of small savings from millions of people, invest them in this thing that is called the Fund, and the Government would then spend the sum on public works. That is a rather convenient way of breaching some of the financial problems. It would not create a fund, other than in an illusory way. As I said earlier, if an individual puts money into a bank and the bank invests lt in Government securities, somehow the individual thinks that there is a fund behind his individual deposit, but when we come to the level where everybody else invests in the Government, as a last resort, where does the Government invest? How can there be a fund at Government level except as a piece of bookkeeping? It is at these aspects of bookkeeping that I think we should look. In order to show that 1 am not quite alone in this rather curious interpretation, I should recount that I was interested to read a book, which is almost hot off the press, with the title “ The Theory of National Income and Employment”. Its author is Mr. Burgess Cameron of the Australian National University. I commend this book to honorable members. lt contains quite simple and precise chapters. Chapter 6 is headed “ Employment Policy and Commonwealth-State Finance”, and at page 41 the learned author says -

Our reservation is then that the public loan programme in Australia is substantially -

Then he makes the exception - (except for Special Bonds) not a public market operation in any meaningful sense. It is almost wholly a reshuffling of moneys between Government institutions and other institutions who arc captive lenders.

Then he makes a rather interesting addition -

In the conditions prevailing from 1951 in 1962 public loan flotations within Australia might just as well have not existed. Insofar as any transfer of any interest bearing moneys was fell to be necessary it could have been done privately between a relatively small number of official and private institutions.

That seems to me to be an observation at least worthy of a certain amount of examination by this House, because we are told that the question of how much we can raise on the loan market is a significant matter. I emphasise again what Mr. Cameron says, that from 1951 to 1962 public loan flotations within Australia might just as well have not existed. Just what the totals raised in that period were I cannot quite lay my hand on at the moment, but I think we can probably begin to see what Mr. Cameron means when we consider how this vast sum that is called the national debt of Australia is in fact held by various sections of the community. I have taken the figures from the most recent issue of the “ Statistical

Bulletin “ of the Reserve Bank of Australia for September 1966. Generally the same figures are contained in the October issue of the “ Treasury Bulletin “, but that seems to be a bit late in coming forward, lt is now 18th October and the October “Treasury Bulletin” is not yet available. Fortunately 1 received this issue of the Reserve Bank’s publication a day or two ago. It shows the same figure as is contained in the National Debt Commission’s annual report.

The amount of Government securities outstanding at 30th June 1966 was $9,134 million. I found in another statistical document that, in addition to this amount, the various local government authorities and semi-governmental authorities have a combined capital debt which is somewhere in the region of $4,000 million. This amount is not regarded as part of the national debt for the purpose of this discussion, but I merely mention that the amount owing or purporting to be owing to the public by Government bodies is $9,000-odd million in the case of Commonwealth securities and $4.000-odd million in the case of local government and semi-governmental authorities. I have not the figures showing how the debt of the local government and semigovernmental authorities is distributed, but I can tell the House the disposition of the $9,000- odd million attributed to Government securities.

The Reserve Bank holds nearly $700 million. The Reserve Bank is just another hand of the Government. It is a Government creation, and it holds $700 million of the debt outstanding. The trading banks - and apparently they belong in a sort of sense in the category of what Mr. Burgess Cameron described as captive lenders because their overall liquidity is controlled by the Reserve Bank - hold more than $1,100 million. The savings banks - and until recently all of them were Government authorities of one kind or another, cither State or Commonwealth - have holdings of $2,100 million. Life assurance officers - and these are just means of collecting premiums from the likes of the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Kelly) and anybody else in the community and investing them in Government securities - hold $833 million worth of Government securities. Organisations providing other forms of insurance - fire, marine and general - hold $100 million worth. Then we get down to what are called “ Other Private Financial Institutions.” Pension and provident funds, which are comparative newcomers to this field, hold about $140 million worth of Government securities, friendly societies $17 million, trustee companies Si 27 million, pastoral finance companies $27 million. Money market dealers - also a new brand of operator in the community - hold $377 million worth, and miscellaneous private institutions $42 million. These give a subtotal of $728 million.

Then we come to Government financial institutions. Government insurance offices hold $108 million, Government pension and provident funds $180 million. This bears out the remark I made earlier that moneys held in the Government’s own superannuation fund are themselves invested in Government securities, at either the State or the Commonwealth level. Then we have public trustees with $32 million, some few others representing in all $7 million, and we then find a total of $328 million for Government financial institutions.

Then we come to what are called “ Public Authorities.” The Commonwealth Government itself holds $1,643 million of its own debt. Nearly a sixth of its own debt is held by the Commonwealth Government’s instrumentalities. State Government Instrumentalities hold $29 million, local government and State semi-governmental $250 million. This gives a total for this section of $1,923 million. Various companies other than financial ones in the community hold $150 million. Then we get to the “ Other Holders.” There are marketing boards with $3.6 million, farmers with $103 million. Apparently the farmers have some surplus funds from time to time. There are nonprofit organisations with $53 million and then there is a heading “ All Other “ with a figure of $980 million.

What these figures show is that, contrary to the suggestion that is sometimes made that the public debt is privately held, if we take individuals as being in that sense private, the maximum amount that is privately held is $980 million out of a total of $9,000 million. The rest of this amount is the subject of what Mr. Burgess Cameron apparently rightly describes as manipulation between a relatively small number of officials and private institutions.

Mr Howson:

– But private institutions have drawn moneys in savings from a large number of private individuals.

Mr CREAN:

– 1 know, but this is where we get down to the germane part of this argument. I do not think one can develop this kind of argument in abstract. What 1 am trying to suggest, to begin with, is that the public debt is a very different animal from the one it is sometimes described as. V/e are told that this huge sum makes so much taxation necessary, and then we find that a large part of the huge sum that notionally attracts interest is simply shuffled out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not to individual taxpayers but to rather large private institutions - if one likes to call them that - or semi.private and public financial institutions, and even directly to the Government itself.

We are sometimes told, of course, when there are what are called flurries in the loan market, that there have been gigantic buyings and sellings of Government securities. I sometimes think it would be a little bit more helpful in this country if we were to be given some further information as to who tha gigantic sellers are on the one hand and - what is of equal importance - who the gigantic buyers are on the other. Of course, what often happens is that if an individual wants to unload or to buy on a large scale the only buyer or only seller with whom he can deal is what might be called the Government’s buyer or seller. He then simply bides his time to unload or to buy in small quantities.

Also, of course, in many senses in Australia the interest rate on Government bonds does have some bearing, direct and indirect, on other interest rates, lt would seem to me that it at least ought to be possible somehow or other to streamline the market in Australia for various investors. To some extent that was what was done when the special bonds were instituted; they were called war savings certificates during war time but are known now as special bonds, and at the moment aggregate some $574 million. If you take the special bonds out of that part of Government securities held by the public - the so called private man - there is left not a very big proportion of the securities in the hands of private investors at all. There would be nearly $580 million in special bonds which would have to come out of the S980 million involved. There is mainly a shuffling round of funds between fairly large institutions and the Government.

It seems to me that because of this it is abou; time we faced up to what in other countries is called debt management. This is a term which I am glad to see was used in the speech of the Minister the other evening. The subject is not discussed much in this country, i was rather surprised when trying to find some information about the opera ions of the National Debt Sinking Fund in Australia, or even information on some studies of national debt, to learn that very little work has been done upon this subject. I talked to some gentlemen yesterday at Melbourne University who are in the field of economics, applied and otherwise, and they said that so far as they knew very little had been done in that field. 1 think it is time a lot more work was done, because this is part of the overall financial control that the Government has to exercise in a community such as ours. What has happened in this field has been very well set out in Her Majesty’s Stationery Office’s publication in 1961 called “Control of Public Expenditure “, which is known more briefly as the Plowden Committee’s report. The Commitee noted the same sort of thing in Great Britain as has happened in Australia. In paragraph 10 of the report the Commit-ee said -

In our judgment, the social, political and economic changes of the last twenty years have created a new situation. First, the scale of public expenditure is far greater. Supply expenditure is now 22 per cent, of the gross national product, compared with 12 per cent, in 1930 . . .

The same sort of circumstance applies in Australia. I think that this year alone the Government is collecting some $6,000 million in one way and another by taxes and by resort to loan transactions - something in the region of one third of the gross national product of Australia. The Report continues -

As a consequence of these changes the public sector of the economy as a whole now employs about one-quarter of the total labour force.

A similar sort of situation is arising in Australia. As I pointed out a few days ago, if it had not been for the fact that public employment had increased considerably in the last 12 months the overall economic situation in Australia would be very much worse than it is. The Report continues -

The total of public expenditure of all kinds, including that of Government above and below the line-

This is the idea they had in Britain. They have reformed their Budget structure since, but items above the line were the ordinary revenue items and items below the line were what were previously known as capital - except that with Government transactions as a whole, in many respects what would be quite a legitimate distinction in a small private enterprise between revenue and capital becomes redundant at the Government level in terms of the vast amount of capital expenditure that goes on year by year. The Report mrs-

The total public expenditure of all kinds, including that of Government above and below the line, that of local authorities, of national insurance fundi., and the capital expenditure of nationalised industries, represents about 42 per cent, of the gross national product. Second, public expenditure has become more complex including, as it docs, the cost of the most advanced technological projects and of scientific research: the financing of commercial risks; . . .

And so on.

Third, there has taken place a great change in economic thought; the Keynesian revolution in the role of public finance and its relationship to the national economy as a whole.

The Committee notes finally -

The Budget is seen, not as a simple balancing of tax receipts against expenditure, but as a sophisticated process in which the instruments of taxation and expenditure are used to influence the course of the economy.

That is why this question of debt management ought to be so significant. The Radcliffe Committee report found that in many respects there were almost conflicts in what governments were trying to do, or what they claimed to do, and in their conduct so far as the management of the debt is concerned. In paragraph 577 of the report of the Committee on the Working of the Monetary System - the Radcliffe Committee report - the Committee states -

Moderately high bond rates-

I suggest that in Australia we have more than moderately high bond rates.

Mr Howson:

– They are about the lowest in the Western world.

Mr CREAN:

– Well, they are not as low as they ought to be. The report states -

Moderately high bond rates and a large Budget deficit form an unusual combination as deliberate measures of economic policy, . . .

At the moment we have - and the Minister for Air (Mr. Howson) apparently disagrees with me on one half of the assumption - moderately high bond rates and, as honorable members know, a large Budget deficit. In many respects they form an unusual combination as deliberate measures of economic policy. I am sure the Minister will find consolation in the following words - but it may well be the right one in a world which, despite recession, remains inflation-minded and growth-minded. And, if it is the right policy for promoting full employment of resources and steady growth, it will probably in the long run be the easiest on the taxpayer, despite the superficial appearance of a high interest charge on the debt.

The words I would like to underline are “ superficial appearance of a high interest charge”, because it seems to me that in Australia it is very difficult to allocate where the impact of this interest rate burden falls. Again I must find myself <it some difference with the Treasurer who, in the course of his speech, referred to the fact that a lot of people stated - according to him, erroneously - that the Commonwealth’s debt was not increasing so fast as the debt of the States. The Minister said -

It is somewhat ironical to find the Commonwealth criticised at times because its debt is not increasing as fast as that of the States - a situation which, by the way, is not the case with Commonwealth non-war debt.

We had a little debate on this subject last week -

One reason why Commonwealth debt is not increasing faster is that the Commonwealth his been prepared to use its accumulated fun, ls to redeem debt which would have been the responsibility of the States if they had sufficient funds available in their own sinking funds.

As a piece of strict book-keeping, that might again be a possible interpretation, but it does not seem to me to be the proper interpretation in the light of the responsibilities of the States. The responsibilities of the States in Australia are somewhat similar to the responsibilities of local governing bodies in the United Kingdom. I draw the Minister’s attention to an article that appeared in the May 1966 issue of “The National Provincial Bank Review “. The article is headed “ Whither Local Government? “ and almost implies that local government may wither away entirely. The article is by A. H. Marshall, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham and reads -

There will be scope for argument here; and also a stimulus to the long-term budgeting advocated by the Plowden Committee-

That is the document from which I just quoted - and (for different reasons) by the Robbins Committee in respect of technical colleges. The central government have taken the advice. Wilt local authorities do likewise? There is certainly scope for such long-term forecasts, which might well lead to a study of the possibilities of applying modern techniques to the process of allocating funds between the local services - an aspect of budgeting which has already received some attention” by Alan Wilson of the Institute of Economics and Statistics at Oxford. At present funds arc distributed largely on hit-and-miss methods. Planning ahead has already made some progress in local government in connection with capital budgets. Comparable developments in revenue budgeting might well be the next step. 1 suggest that we in Australia have a long way yet to go in getting down to systematic forward planning and the equitable treatment of public development both at the State level and at the local government level, but particularly at the local government level. After all, we have only to look at where most of the citizens of Australia live. More than 5,500,000 out of our total population of 1 1 million live in the two great sprawling cities of Melbourne and Sydney. The solving of the problems posed by those cities, together with the decentralisation which everybody apparently yearns for must depend, surely, upon our relooking first at how local government is financed, and secondly at the allocation of loan moneys. Whether the money is to come out of the accumulated funds of the Commonwealth, or by resort to borrowing in the kind of sophisticated market circumstances that I have talked about, we have ample evidence that there must be more systematic planning at the central level.

Mr Howson:

– How does the honorable member feel it should be done?

Mr CREAN:

– This is where the question of debt management comes in. It is stated somewhere in the Radcliffe Com mittee’s report that the public sector of the economy can no longer be made the residuary legatee in allocating available moneys. In other words, we cannot work on the principle of letting private enterprise have all it wants first and then letting public enterprise have the rest. There has to be a more sophisticated formula than that, and this is where the question of debt management is so significant. At least the Government has incorporated in the Budget in recent years tables showing the overall outcome of the Budget and these give the final item which is the net resort to borrowing. As we argued the other day, this borrowing can be from several sources. The source can be local, it can be international, and it can even be Reserve Bank credit finance. But at least the system has to be something better than what the writer of the article I have quoted describes as a hit and miss method. There is still far too much hit and miss in the Australian financial programme. lt may well be that I have wandered a long way from the subject of the National Debt Sinking Fund, as such, except that I regard it as only little more than an historical curiosity. I think it is unfortunate in many respects that these amendments are being made now rather than when the new Parliament assembles, because, whoever is in government then will have to face up to these problems. lt is regrettable in many respects that so little interest is being taken in such a significant matter as this. I can well understand that in the last two weeks of the Parliament, when some honorable members are apprehensive as to whether they will be here at all in the future, they are inclined to be more concerned with other things. However, 1 think this fundamental matter merits a much wider discussion than it has received. 1 am thankful to the Minister for having indicated to me as far back as June or July that this legislation might come before us. I have done a certain amount of reading on the subject; but it is a fluid and flexible field. In fact, what we call the floating debt is, to my mind, almost as elusive, or illusive, as the odd character we call the floating voter. A lot of research is necessary to find out just what it is, in essence, that is floating.

There are many factors involved. There are fiscal controls and monetary controls. Then there is the question of debt management. The report of the United States Commission on Money and Credit has a quite substantial section dealing with this matter. Of course, America suffers under difficulty that I am glad does not face us. In that country, the Federal Reserve Bank still imagines it can have much more independence of the Government than most other people think is wise. Neither the Tory Party of the United Kingdom nor the British Labour Government would ever want the Bank of England to occupy, in Britain’s financial structure, the role held by the Reserve Bank of the United States. Fortunately, in Australia, under Labour’s 1945 banking legislation, the Government has control of central banking. Even when the Liberal-Country Party Government amended that legislation and later constituted the Reserve Bank of Australia, it did not alter the provision that if there is conflict between the Reserve Bank and the Government as to what the financial and monetary objectives should be, the Government will have the final say. That is essential; but if the Government’s final say is to be effective, the Government must use with the greatest degree of accuracy the various instruments that are at its disposal. I should imagine that what Burgess Cameron writes is rather nearer to the truth than is healthy for the economy of Australia. I hope that his saying this outside this place may at least stir the matter up a little. Surely, if we think that the raising of Government loans is significant, this statement by Burgess Cameron takes some answering -

In the conditions prevailing from 1951 to 62 public loan flotations within Australia might just’ as well not have existed.

I think there is a serious case there for the Government to answer. It may well bc that the Government will produce another of its Treasury White Papers. I find these a distinct improvement. They provide a great deal of information; but they still do not provide that information in a form which is readily enough understood by the man in the street. I have mentioned this before. I hope that the Treasury will consider publishing something like the Treasury bulletins that were issued by the

United Kingdom Treasury, but which are now issued by the Department of Economic Affairs. They tackle some of these problems and try to put them in a layman’s language to make them comprehensible. This is not an easy matter to grasp, but I think there ought to be much more information available in Australia about the holding of the debt. It is true that a wide range of categories of debt holders is given, but it is important to know also how much of the debt is held short term and how much is held long term. These are significant aspects of the subject. One can go through the details of the National Debt Sinking Fund and find how much of the debt has 2, 3, 4 and even up to 15 or 20 years to run, but one cannot find who holds the securities. Perhaps that does not matter much if those controlling the Fund know who holds the securities. I believe that since only relatively few people hold them, the Treasury probably has that sort of information.

I believe that we need something better than the suggestion that during 1966 there have been considerable sales of Commonwealth securities or that the Commonwealth has had to operate in the market extensively, when we are faced with the opinion of a man of some eminence who states that for 1 1 years we may as well not have had a loan market at all. It may be that he has exaggerated the significance of the position. I do’ ndo know. I must confess that I have always been sceptical about the operations that go on in the bond market, because many people who invest in government securities have to invest in such securities no matter what the interest rate may be. Therefore, our endeavour should be to keep interest rates as low as possible, not as high as possible. I believe that more people in the community gain by interest rates being low than profit by them being high. To some extent the Government, through its central banking system and through its debt management agency, if it believes in management, would be able significantly to influence interest rates.

I leave the matter there, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that on another occasion further action may be proposed with respect to the residue of the National Debt Sinking Fund and thai we shall then have more time, in perhaps less pressing circumstances, than we have now and that we shall be able to go into the matter more fully. I confess that my remarks have perhaps not been so consecutive as they might have been. I found that a great deal was involved in this matter, but I have had so many other things to do over the last couple of weeks that I have not been able to polish my remarks as much as I would have liked. However, this has been an interesting exercise. 1 believe that the whole matter merits further consideration by this House on a later occasion.

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Air and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Fawkner · LP

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have just heard an interesting discourse on this subject by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean). I am glad that the Opposition agrees that the Bill should bc given a speedy passage. The honorable member has raised a number of wider issues and I do not think that at this stage I really need to reply to his remarks on those wider aspects. One point that he made was that there is need now for the Commonwealth not only to examine the management of the public debt but also to look at the general question of the raising of private capital on the loan market. I presume from the honorable member’s remarks that he would advocate capital issues control. On this, we as a government would not entirely agree with him.

Mr Crean:

– I have not said that, but I am sure that much more sophistication in management is required than exists at present. More justice is needed in the process.

Mr HOWSON:

– What I am really getting at is: Can the honorable member tell the House how this can be achieved without capital issues control of the sort that was imposed by the Labour Government in the period from 1945 on?

Mr Crean:

– If the Government managed the debt better, the situation would be easier to deal with. That is all I am saying.

Mr HOWSON:

– 1 just wanted to bring out the point that there is a difference between the respective approaches to this subject adopted by honorable members on this side of the House and by Opposition members. The honorable member mentioned an observation made by the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) in his second reading speech, in these terms -

  1. . the Commonwealth has been prepared to use its accumulated funds to redeem debt which would have been the responsibility of the States if they had sufficient funds available in their own Sinking Funds.

I believe that the honorable member has not realised the importance of this. It is a matter on which, I believe, we shall not get agreement between honorable members on opposite sides of the chamber. I. know that the Premier of Victoria has criticised the Commonwealth Government again on this issue. I believe it might be wise, in view of the honorable member’s remarks, if we set out in the form of a paper the steps by which this argument is arrived at. In the interests of clarity, we have not so far set out all the steps in this rather complicated process. Having examined the matter in detail, we believe that it is clear that the Commonwealth has paid its part in using its funds as the Treasurer has stated. However, I believe that it might be wise in the interests of all concerned with this rather complicated field of economic management if we set out the details more fully. In conclusion, I wish only to say that 1 am glad that the Opposition is being helpful by agreeing to give this measure a speedy passage. I believe that honorable members on both sides of the chamber realise that a bill of this kind is rather overdue and should perhaps have been introduced some time ago.

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. Howson) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 8 p.m.

page 1883

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th September (vide page 1426), on motion by Mr. Snedden -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The purpose of this Bill is to increase the permissible number of puisne judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court from four to six. Numerous acts have now resulted in the judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court devoting much less time to the functions for which the Court was created 10 years ago - the injunction and contempt provisions, sections 109 and 11 1 - than they do to the other functions which they have been given. This is a trend to which the Labour Party wholeheartedly gives its support. The Commonwealth Industrial Court is now substantially a judicial pool for the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) has informed us that it is proposed to appoint the new primary judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Furthermore, another judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court will be appointed to the Trade Practices Tribunal. Judges of the Court have been appointed as additional members of the Supreme Courts of the Northern Territory as well as of the Australian Capital Territory. They constitute the Supreme Courts of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island - in fact all Territories other than the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and the Trust Territory of Nauru. The Chief Judge carries out inquiries under the Navigation Act and the Air Navigation Regulations. Judges of the Court can accept royal commissions. Judges of this Court carry out all the judicial functions so far enacted by this Parliament except those of the High Court and the Bankruptcy Court.

In December 1962 - almost four years ago - the Cabinet gave leave to the then Attorney-General to design a new Federal superior court. It would be a very easy operation to convert the Commonwealth Industrial Court into the Federal superior court. One of the arguments given by the then Attorney-General, the present Chief

Justice of Australia, was the vast burden on the High Court imposed by appeals from territorial supreme courts and matters coming before single justices of the High Court. The statistics in this regard were given by the then Attorney-General in the first article in the first number of the first volume of the “’ Federal Law Review “, which is the journal of the Faculty of Law in the School of General Studies in the Australian National University.

On 29th September this year the AttorneyGeneral supplied answers to a question that I had placed on the notice paper. His answers show that the burden on the High Court has continued. In the first three years since the Cabinet gave permission for the design of a new Federal superior court the Full High Court had to hear 35 appeals from the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and single justices of the High Court have had to hear 156 matters. The case, therefore, for constituting a Federal superior court has become stronger in the intervening four years.

Judges who are called upon to interpret and apply statutes should be appointed by governments responsible to the parliaments which pass those statutes. In Australia, as in the United States of America, Federal laws should ordinarily be applied and interpreted by judges appointed by the Federal Government. Single judges, for instance, in a Federal superior court could hear causes under the Bankruptcy Act, the Copyright. Act, the Designs Act, the Patents Act and the Trade Marks Act and perhaps the Matrimonial Causes Act, although this is a matter upon which the former AttorneyGeneral had a contrary view and on which there may still be a great difference of opinion.

Furthermore, judges in a Federal superior court could, to the exclusion of the State courts, hear matters upon which the Commonwealth can make procedural or substantive laws. They could sit as a Court of Disputed Returns and on the Inter-State Commission and on the Trade Practices Tribunal. A full court of the Federal superior court could, instead of the High Court, hear appeals from courts of the Territories and from single judges of the

Federal superior court. I would suggest, furthermore, that this Federal superior court could hear administrative appeals. Administrative decisions frequently have a greater effect than court judgments on the livelihoods and liberties of citizens. Their extent may be seen from an answer which the former Prime Minister gave in August last year to this question -

Under what statutes have boards, tribunals and committees been established and courts been empowered to hear appeals from the decisions of Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities?

In his reply Sir Robert Menzies listed 46 acts. He listed 82 sections or groups of sections of those acts under which appeals could be made. He listed 46 different categories of boards, tribunals, committees and courts hearing such appeals. A tally of the separate bodies within the various categories, States and Territories, would run to hundreds. The bodies seldom sit in public or publish reasons for their decisions.

There is too great diversity in the existing bodies and too great mystery in the existing methods. A Federal superior court would provide an independent appeal body and regular appeal methods in the Commonwealth sphere and a model for State and municipal procedures. In some Federal matters, such as surcharges under the Audit Act. compensation for unreasonable arrest or detention under the Crimes Act and redress of wrongs in the armed services, a decision may be made by the GovernorGeneral. In respect of matters such as social service payments and Security Service reports, a review may be made by a department after representations by a member of Parliament. Such procedures are appeals from Caesar to Caesar. They, too, could be scrutinised by a Federal court.

I have taken this opportunity to suggest that the increasing pressure of work on the High Court, the increasing number of statutes passed by this Parliament and the increasing impact of administrative decisions under Commonwealth acts make it desirable to speed the conversion of the Commonwealth Industrial Court into the projected Federal superior court. We applaud the withering of the functions originally given to this Court 10 years ago. We support the extension of the Court’s membership in the belief that this will accelerate the extension and transformation of its functions.

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. Snedden) read a third time.

page 1884

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th August (vide page 109), on motion by Mr. Adermann -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, the course suggested by the Minister will be adopted.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann), who is in charge of this legislation, has said, the Bill affects the Australian poultry industry. The industry is of very substantial importance to the people of Australia, not only from the point of view of the local consumption of the delectable product of the hen, known to some people as hen fruit, but also because the industry is a fairly substantial earner of export income. I might say in passing that before the introduction of organised marketing in this industry - Labour has always supported such schemes and in fact pioneered them - egg production had very grave difficulties to contend with.

As most honorable members know, these difficulties stemmed from section 92 of the Australian Constitution. In the last quarter of a century, every State has introduced legislation to control the distribution and sale of eggs within the State boundaries. Inevitably arising from the organised planning of egg marketing is the burden of administrative expenses. A State must work in co-operation with the other States and must impose what is generally known as an equalisation levy. The income of egg producers is derived on the one hand from the sale of eggs on the local market and on the other hand from the sale of eggs on overseas markets. The ambition of all egg controlling authorities working under State legislation has been to impose levies on production within their States and to equalise the proceeds of sales on the local and overseas markets. That is an infinitely fair process. It ensures that, when export prices are high, every egg producer will receive a share of the high export prices. On the other hand, it ensures that, when export prices are low, the consequential losses will be shared by all egg producers.

Over a long period, commercial egg producers have been troubled by one great difficulty. The moment they transport eggs from Victoria into New South Wales or from any State into a neighbouring State, they can claim the protection of section 92 of the Constitution, which provides that trade and commerce between the States of the Commonwealth shall be free. This has meant that the largest egg producing organisation in Australia, which is located in Victoria, has been able to thumb its nose at the State marketing authority and evade its share of the responsibility of equalisation. Last year, the egg producers’ organisations of the Commonwealth submitted a plan to the Government and the Government was able to overcome most of the anomalies that existed. As honorable members know, the scheme adopted by the Parliament provided for the imposition of a levy that is really the equivalent of an excise tax. That is to say, every young hen, and old hen for that matter, which is an egg producer, is subject to a tax of about 7s.

Mr Adermann:

– It applies to hens six months and over.

Mr POLLARD:

– That is right. Young hens that do not lay are excluded. Hens do not lay until they are about six months old. This would seem, on the face of it, to be a very substantial tax. However, in practice, it ensures that everybody gets a fair deal. I do not think for one moment that the consuming public is hurt in any way by the tax. As a matter of fact, over a long period I have reached the conclusion that the egg marketing authorities have been able to ensure that the Australian consumers have a better quality egg than they otherwise would have. Of course, I have often noticed that a person who asks for a dozen eggs in a delicatessen or some other shop and specifies that they must be egg board eggs is told that the shopkeeper does not have egg board eggs but has something equally as good. Of course, this does not happen in every instance. These shops may have eggs, but the customer does not know whether they are a month old or six months old. What has been happening is that people who were obliged by State laws to deliver eggs to the State board for distribution, and in some cases have producers licences, have picked out the good quality eggs when they have been grading their product for the market and have sent them to the board. The eggs they think will not pass the board’s inspection are sold to shops in various suburbs. If a customer complains about the quality of eggs he has obtained from a shop that is not marketing egg board eggs, the blame usually is placed on the egg board. So the egg producer gets it coming and going. These are the facts. Since the introduction of this legislation in 1965 by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) I believe that the egg producing folk of Australia have seen some gleam of light, because the difficulties of section 92 of the Constitution have been largely overcome, and I understand the organisation is working reasonably satisfactorily.

The Labour Opposition, as the Minister knows, is an exponent of organised marketing of primary produce. It supported the principal Act in 1965 and, being consistent, it is supporting the amendments now before the Parliament. The amendments will tighten up some of the weaknesses that have been discovered in the 1965 legislation and will improve certain facets of the industry. Some people, including some honorable members, will probably object to one particular amendment, namely, the amendment empowering an inspector of the organisation to enter the establishment of a commercial egg producer and count the number of hens in his flock to ensure that the number tallies with the return the producer has submitted to the authority. This provision is fair enough. I understand that previously the levy was imposed in such a manner as to render it impossible for the authority to check whether or not the producer’s return was correct. If I remember rightly - and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong - the levy was checked against the number of eggs the producer produced. However, when this legislation is passed the levy will be imposed on the actual count of hens in an establishment. This is desirable.

It may be suggested that the amendment gives wide powers, lt will enable an inspector of the authority to go on to the premises of an egg producing farmer and not only inspect his hen pens, or whatever they are called, but also enter the poultry farmer’s own home, buildings or offices. This seems to be a great power and some people are fearful that inspectors may be indiscreet or may become obsessed with the large measure of power vested in them and may carry their inspectorial power to extreme lengths in invading premises unnecessarily, and, indeed, invading homes similarly in search of records they consider may be secreted therein.

Mr Nixon:

– The owner will be henpecked.

Mr POLLARD:

– The facetious honorable member for Gippsland suggests that owners may become henpecked. I have given the facts. This power could well be abused in some circumstances. We must ask ourselves whether it is not a fact that all heads of power granted to all governments can, without the exercise of common sense, be substantially abused. However, I think it can be said in the circumstances we are considering that the Ministers in the respective States will ensure that before this power is exercised the inspector will be warned to be discreet and will be required to report his suspicions to the Minister or his deputy and obtain approval to make an inspection. I should think this would be a substantial safeguard.

Officers of the Taxation Branch are empowered by the Commonwealth Parliament to invade premises and to inspect books. This is probably very necessary, because to the extent that they discover people who are evading taxation they are lightening the burden of taxation on honest people who do not evade taxation. To the extent that this industry may lose revenue by virtue of deliberate evasion by commercial poultry producers, we are justified in arming the powers that be with a measure of power to ovecome that evasion. We hope it will work that way. For that reason, while we do not like it, the Opposition will support this extension of power to the authorities concerned.

It is true that a similar head of power operates under the Dairy Produce Act. Inspectors of the Australian Dairy Produce Board are authorised to inspect butter fat records, to go into any type of premises and to make such inspections as are considered necessary from time to time. We do not like this particular amendment, but I think the warning I have uttered may be sufficient to ensure that those responsible do not exceed the power vested in them. Some people have suggested that inspectors charged with the responsibility of examining premises may, after examining premises that are found to contain some virulent poultry disease, transmit that disease fo a clean farm. This is a danger, but I should imagine that under his regulation-making power the Minister would ensure that an inspector would be attired in fumigated clothing and that after an examination his clothing would be refumigated before he inspected another property.

Another feature of the legislation before us is designed to facilitate exemptions that are granted to the broiler industry. We want to ensure that people who are engaged solely in producing broilers are not levied an unnecessary tax. There is. provision also for the setting aside of finance for research and other activities. The Opposition supports the measure and hopes it will contribute to the continued satisfactory operation of th3 commercial egg marketing organisation and that in due course even those who at present do not consider this sort of arrangement a good thing will be converted to believing that it is of substantial benefit not only to the Industry itself but to that vast number of people in Australia who have always recognised the delectable egg as one of the most nourishing and most acceptable items of diet that the human race so far has discovered. I even express the hope, in view of the fact that the industry is faced with enormous difficulties because of falling prices on the export market, that consumers will consider eating an extra egg a day to assist the industry.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

.- The three bills now before the House in effect follow the legislation which was presented to us in May last year. It is not my intention to delay the House but I think 1 should point out that these are quite important measures. After introducing bills of this nature it is often found necessary to make some slight amendments to them. Another important aspect is that the industry itself is organised and is in fact working, in conjunction with both State and Federal Governments.

Over the years it has been found that primary industries generally have suffered somewhat in relation to marketing. Circumstances today in many industries are different from what they were. Originally, the industries became organised within themselves and the body they set up was their authority or mouthpiece. It then approached the Government for assistance. Not only has the Government assisted the poultry industry in relation to marketing operations, it has assisted the industry also in the field of research. This aspect is covered by one of the Government’s proposals to amend the existing legislation. If an industry takes upon itself the responsibility of finding out what the industry needs and then approaches the Government for assistance, that industry will make progress.

We know that research is a very important part of every industry in Australia. It would be impossible to measure the degree of prosperity which has come to industry and to Australians generally from research. It is pleasing indeed that the Government has seen fit to make available a limit of 8100,000 a year, on a Si for $1 basis, to enable research to be carried out in the industry. The poultry industry has had great difficulty in finding suitable markets overseas. It still has this difficulty. The poultry market is not an easy one to break into for various reasons. Competition from other countries is one main reason. Freight rates, which are very high, is another factor. However, although the industry has many problems, it is making great strides towards organising itself as between States.

The legislation before us contains one of the industry’s recommendations to the effect that the Minister shall have power to take account of the number of birds covered by it. lt was thought that perhaps this would not be necessary but in fact the industry has decided that it is necessary in some cases. To my mind the poultry industry itself should ensure that all those concerned in it should play their part in making this legislation work. Of course, when we have broad legislation such as this affecting so many people there are always the odd one or two who do not wish to participate in it. This is well understood, but if an industry is to find its feet, if an industry is to be successful in marketing its products, all those concerned must play their part. It is only fair to those who are willing to do so that the remainder of the industry should do likewise. For this reason the legislation has been found necessary.

Referring to the $100,000 which the Government will provide, I point out that the industry can expend more than the total $200,000 a year which will be available. This research can be of great assistance to the industry which, as I have said,’ has had its problems and will continue to have its problems unless it has a very close look at the various factors operating within it. I suggest, and I hope, thai the industry extends its research beyond Australia. This is so important. The different methods which have been found of marketing the product have been a life saver to the industry, but I remind the House that this is not the only industry which is having difficulty selling overseas. New techniques have been found in relation to treating and selling eggs. I understand that some of these techniques are rather expensive operations, but this is the type of process we are looking to not only in the egg industry but also in relation to many industries. For instance, we find a completely different situation in the meat industry today compared to what it was in the past. Not only the beef and mutton industries have changed. The poultry industry has changed also. The various forms of packaging meat that we see today are a different concept from what we saw many years ago.

The poultry industry has made great strides over the years. Many years ago if we wanted a rooster for Sunday dinner we went to the fowlyard, caught the rooster arid processed it from there. Today we can purchase a rooster in the finished state ready for cooking. In fact, we can even purchase poultry which has passed through the various processes and is ready for the table. That is the trend today. Research has brought many of these things to us. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation. I wish this industry every success because I realise the difficulties it has been through. It is an extremely important industry to Australia so far as employment opportunities are concerned. Almost every family in Australia uses its products. I suppose everyone has an egg regularly. If the industry keeps itself organised and approaches the Government from time to time when it is confronted with problems, I have no doubt that it will prosper.

Mr ARMSTRONG:
Riverina

.- I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for very long. I want to refer to one aspect of the proposed amendment which has caused confusion in the minds of some people. It relates to the rights of an inspector who, for the purposes of the Act, may enter premises at all reasonable times to count birds and to inspect documents. Exaggerated viewpoints have been put forward on the rights this gives to inspectors. It is true to say that some people in authority do abuse their power and cause inconvenience to others but this is very rare particularly when they are responsible to competent authority. It is akin to the rights and powers of say, a rabbit inspector in New South Wales. I was and still am a member of the Pastures Protection Board and I know there are people who object to these powers. They insist on an inspector reporting to the homestead, which may be 10 or 20 miles away, before he is allowed to enter the property. It is more than a coincidence that the people who ask for these conveniences are the ones who are rather reluctant to destroy rabbits. I venture the suggestion that the people who object to this kind of thing in relation to the poultry industry are similarly situated.

I read the other day a rather interesting comment by a producer in Victoria. He welcomed this new power which meant that inspectors did not need to be in possession of a warrant to enter premises but could, at all reasonable times and in all reasonable circumstances, enter the premises. He said he welcomed it because the inspector found that he had 200 fewer fowls than he thought he had. Apparently a jackeroo had been keeping tally of the number when they were counted previously. I think it is true to say that egg producers throughout Australia have benefited greatly from this Act. They have turned an industry which was in chaos and confusion into one which can see its way clear and which has derived great benefits from the Act. I am sure that the return to producers last year was considerably higher than it had been previously. I venture to suggest that those who oppose the levy are those who make a profit by evading the Act at the expense of those who comply with it. I support the amendments very strongly.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

– I do not want to say very much on this Bill. The Opposition does not intend to oppose it. However, there are a few points, one of which was mentioned by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Armstrong). It can be assumed that the inspectors appointed under the Act will not abuse their authority. If they did do so the situation would become very difficult for the egg producers. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann), who is now at the table, knows the problems that face egg producers in northern Queensland. Many meetings have been held by the industry and the Minister is fully acquainted with the position. Producers in that area were in a difficult situation because of the legislation which was passed last year. This situation was brought about by the increased cost of production which threatened to put many of them out of business. The Minister has said that he was introducing legislation which would provide some leniency for northern producers to enable them to meet this problem.

However, he has given authority under the Act to the State Minister. 1 trust that the State Minister also will be fully informed about the meetings which were held by the northern producers and that he also will be sympathetic to their problems. In fact their problems have increased since the last meeting was held. An increase in rail freights has brought about an increase in the cost of production since the last meeting was held by the egg producers.

Mr Cope:

– Who put the freights up - the Liberal Government?

Mr FULTON:

– That is right. Whether the producers can continue under the present legislation will be a problem for them. Unless the northern producers get some relief they will go out of production altogether. But of course the southern producers would welcome that. They now claim that they can produce enough eggs to supply the whole of northern Queensland. But honorable members must bear in mind that often in this place we have heard people talk of decentralisation and development. If we chase producers from the industry we will denude northern Queensland of its egg producers. This will send more people from the north and encourage nobody to go there. 1 think consideration should be given to this point.

I hope that the Minister has consulted with the State Minister on the proposed legislation and that the State legislation brought down in Queensland will assist egg producers in that State. We are not opposed to orderly marketing of any product; in fact we favour it in any form. But, at the same time, justice must be shown to all members of the community who are engaged in this industry. I feel sure that the Minister knows perfectly well the hardships which the northern egg producers are facing at the present time. Unless they are given some benefit by reduced levies they will probably all go out of production, it would be a shame to see another industry retarded in the north where development can be brought about only by attracting to the area every industry it can get. This is a very valuable part of the country. It is just as valuable as the south and probably has more to offer than the south not only in egg production but also in the production of other exports. Unless we can get people to remain in the area we will lose more industries from the north.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– in reply - It is good to hear all honorable members supporting this amendment to the legislation which, as the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) has mentioned, has shown a good measure of success during its 12 months of operation. By all working together the State Boards have brought that about to good effect, so much so that over the whole of Australia it could probably be said that egg producers have benefited by from 5d. to 6d. a dozen for eggs which have been sold through the Egg Boards. So the stability brought about by the legislation has been proved. The first Bill provides for research. The Commonwealth’s contribution is a maximum of $100,000. But there is no limit to the amount that the industry can spend if it so desires. We all agree that research is necessary in each industry and produces benefits.

I refer now to the point mentioned by the honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Fulton). The legislation provides for permissive powers to enable conditions which apply in sparsely settled areas to be catered for. In those circumstances producers are not in an Egg Board area and yet come under Commonwealth legislation. As all producers must be treated alike, those producers must still pay the levy. But the situation is not as bad as the honorable member for Leichhardt suggests when he says that producers in the south want to push northern producers out of existence. The Queensland Egg Board has assured producers in the north that they will not sell in the north eggs produced in the south at a price less than the Brisbane price plus freight to the north. So in effect they are on equal terms. The only thing that is retarding northern producers in their operation is that they seem to be paying an excessively high price for feed. Even when it is locally manufactured it seems to be a very high price. The price of feed for their poultry is the main cause of their trouble.

The Egg Board in southern Queensland has dealt with the situation fairly. That gives northern producers an opportunity to sell in competition with producers in the south. However, there are difficulties and that is why in this amendment we are providing permissive powers. The Stale Minister is a party to this and has agreed to take this into consideration. If we pass this amendment he will exercise his authority to meet the circumstances which exist in the north so that producers there can receive the compensating benefit which will arise from the amendment. The second Bill which gives the power of search is, in effect, what the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities has asked for and has recommended to the Government. The Government, and now this House, agrees that we want the power so that the number of hens on a farm can be counted. The wording is the wording of legal men. All that we sought was the right to count the hens. The State Boards already have the power with regard to eggs but only some of them have the power in respect of hens. But since this levy is based on a hen population and is Commonwealth legislation to provide for the collection of the levy, we need power in the legislation applying to hens. If poultrymen had in all cases kept correct records and were paying their rightful share, there would have been no need for an amendment.

I received a deputation of persons who were not favorably disposed to this legislation, and we discussed the matter fully. When I explained the whole set-up and asked whether they thought there should be any discrimination between producers in respect of the amounts that should be paid, they said: “ No, that point is accepted “. I said: “ That is all we want. We want an acceptance of the principle that all should pay a rightful share by way of levy”. As has been explained by the opening speaker in this debate tonight, the imposition of this levy seems to represent a kind of tax, but it is all paid back for equalisation purposes and it benefits the whole industry as a result.

This power of search, if one likes to call it such, is stipulated, although not in exactly the same wording, in at least 11 other Commonwealth Acts, A similar power resides in most of the primary industry boards in the various States. I think there are 17 such boards in Queensland. We have a proud record in this field. Throughout all the years during which stabilised marketing schemes have been in operation, and irrespective of the political complexion of governments in office from time to time, there has not been one case of offence by any inspector. I consider this most credit able. It shows that officials who are appointed to these positions accept their responsibilities and do their jobs correctly.

The honorable member for Lalor raised a point about disease. We discussed this with the agricultural authorities. I discussed it with the people who came to see me about this power of search. A couple of them said: “There is more danger of our carrying a disease about than there would be of any inspector carrying a disease “. But this provision is applicable in the case of all State boards. It is applicable to C.E.M.A. Any inspector who goes on to a man’s poultry farm must, if required to do so, put on a new pair of polythene boots. He leaves the boots at the farm and there is then no possibility of his carrying disease from one farm to another. Every care is taken and I am sure there is really no danger of carrying disease.

The third Bill provides for an amendment in respect of those who are engaged in raising broiler fowls. Under a formula in the Act, owners of broiler breeder hens pay levy in respect of only that notional proportion of their flock whose eggs are not used for hatching purposes. This was arrived at by taking a three-monthly average. Representations have been made to us concerning certain persons engaged in raising broiler fowls who work on a cycle of 66 weeks, after which they clear them all out, rest the sheds for some weeks and start the cycle again. The three-monthly average is, to a degree, unfair to them, and so we have introduced this amendment so that they may work on a fortnightly average if they wish to do so. They can choose which basis they will adopt in respect of the levy payments.

We have tried to correct the anomalies that have become apparent during our experience of 12 months’ operations, in the hope that the legislation will work even better than it has done in the past. I thank the House for its support of this legislation.

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. Adermann) read a third time.

page 1891

POULTRY INDUSTRY LEVY COLLECTION BULL 1966

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17th August (vide page 110), on motion by Mr. Adermann -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1891

POULTRY INDUSTRY LEVYBILL. 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd September (vide page 1170). on motion by Mr. Adermann -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I wish to refer to clause 3, which reads: -

Section 6of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “Ten shillings “ and inserting in their stead the words “ One dollar “.

I move -

Omit “ sub-section (2.) “, insert “ sub-section (3.) “.

Clause 3 of the Poultry Industry Levy Bill 1966 was a machinery amendment, the intention of which was to convert the 10s. maximum levy to decimal currency. Clause 3 indicated that the appropriate sub-section which referred to the 10s. was sub-section 2. This was the result of a clerical error, and the appropriate sub-section is actually sub-section 3. These mistakes should not happen but this one did happen. The amendment I now move is merely for the purpose of correcting this error.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill as amended agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 1891

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th October (vide page 1757), on motion by Mr. Freeth -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The Opposition does not oppose the Public Service Bill. Some improvements are effected by it. We direct our attention, however, to matters as to which the Government has once again failed to make improvements. My colleague, the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti), last Wednesday askedthe Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) whether he would agree that public servants should at least have the benefit of four weeks’ annual leave, or recreation leave as it is called in the Public Service Act. The Prime Minister replied in these terms -

Some time ago I received a deputation of representatives of the Public Service organisations and I undertook to bring the views of that deputation, which was pressing for four weeks’ annual leave for Commonwealth public servants, to the Cabinet. A Cabinet submission has been prepared which goes fully into this matter. I should expect it to be considered shortly and a decision to be reached for announcement before the Parliament rises.

I interjected and said -

And before the present Bill is passed? There is a Public Service Bill on the Senate notice paper.

The Prime Minister replied -

But not dealing with annual leave.

In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Public Service Bill which had been introduced in the Senate, and which has now come to us for debate tonight, did make provision for annual leave. The Bill had apparently gone forward in the other place without the Prime Minister being aware of that fact. The following day - last Thursday - Labour senators moved an amendment to that Bill to provide four weeks annual leave for Commonwealth public servants. Half of the members of the Senate voted for our amendment and half voted against it. Accordingly the Senate being evenly divided, it was not carried. In the Committee stages of this Bill tonight we will move the same amendment. The Prime Minister has already indicated in a statement he made by leave after question time this afternoon that the Government will not approve four weeks annual leave for Commonwealth public servants. He explained that the Bill had been dealt with in the other place in this regard before he gave the reply to the Australian Council of Trade Unions which brought to him the deputation to which he referred last Wednesday in the remarks I have quoted. He explained why he had not informed the A.C.T.U. of the Government’s decision before the decision made became public property in the Senate. Whatever the ethics of these matters may be, the Prime Minister did not know, apparently, that the decision had already been conveyed in the Senate in the Bill that had already been presented there. More importantly still, the Government is once again rejecting four weeks annual leave for Commonwealth publicservants.

Commonwealth public servants were given the present three weeks annual leave - or, to put it technically, a limit of three weeks annual leave was placed on them - in 1901. Thus there is to be no improvement in their conditions in this regard after two-thirds of a century. Back in 1901 very few people, even among salaried people, received paid annual leave. One of the great advantages of employment in public services at the time was that of paid annual leave. The whole of the advantage which Commonwealth public servants had in this field has been lost. Three weeks annual leave is now the standard in Australia in all Commonwealth and State awards. The New South Wales Public Service enjoys four weeks annual leave under legislation introduced by the former Labour Government of that State.

Mr James:

– Some branches of the New South Wales Public Service get five weeks annual leave.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes; those in particularly arduous occupations such as that formerly pursued by my friend, the honorable member for Hunter. There are many other persons who enjoy four weeks annual leave, or more, under their awards because of the arduousness of their occupations or the isolation of their employment. Commonwealth public servants, under the Holt Government as under the Menzies Government, are to maintain 1901 standards. We are often told that employees should resort to arbitration. This is not a matter where public servants can resort to arbitration. There is a ceiling imposed on annual leave, as on long service leave, for Commonwealth public servants. There is a ceiling imposed similarly on annual leave for members of the Forces. The provision for servicemen is not so archaic as that for Commonwealth public servants. In the case of the Navy and the Air Force, annual leave was fixed immediately after the First World War. Commonwealth public servants cannot ask the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator or, on appeal from him, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to determine their annual leave. By statute the Commonwealth places a ceiling upon it.

The next matter to which I shall refer is equal pay for Commonwealth employees. Some years ago members of the Labour Party sought to amend the Public Service Bill in the Senate to provide for equal pay, for work of equal value, for mcn and women public servants. The Senate is the only House of this Parliament which has the benefit of women members. The Government senatrices voted against equal pay for Commonwealth public servants on that occasion, as they did last week, despite the fact that they themselves receive equal pay. Senator Dorothy Tangney of the Australian Labour Party, of course on both occasions voted for equal pay for Commonwealth employees. On 2nd December last year my colleague the honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Hayden) on a general business day moved -

That, in respect of the Commonwealth Public Service, this House is of opinion that -

Female employees holding permanent appointment should be able to retain their appointment after marriage, if they so wish;

Married females should be eligible for appointment to permanent positions; and

Confinement leave should be available for female employees.

This matter still remains on the notice paper, together with 15 other matters none of which have yet been brought to a vote. I think it was the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) who announced about three months ago that these amendments would be accepted by the Government. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Freeth), in the second reading speech on this Bill, said that it had not been possible to introduce the amendments in the Bill. However, there is still no sign that the present Commonwealth Government will provide for equal pay for its employees.

Equal pay has been a principle in international organisations ever since the war. The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, which the Parliament approved in 1945, recites that the people of the United Nations are determined, among other things, to reaffirm faith in the equal rights of men and women. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Australia supported in the General Assembly in 1948, asserts that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. The International Labour Conference in 1951 adopted Convention No. 100 and Recommendation No. 90 concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value. The Convention secured the necessary two thirds votes among delegates. The Australian Government’s delegates abstained from voting on the Convention. They did, however, support the recommendation. In 1958, the International Labour Conference adopted similarly the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention by the necessary two thirds majority. Needless to say, the Australian Government’s representatives abstained from voting upon it.

Mr James:

– At least they were consistent.

Mr WHITLAM:

– One might have thought they were consistent in this matter, but, in fact, over the years, the Government has shown extraordinary vagaries in its attitude towards equal pay in different international bodies. In 1953, the subject of equal pay came before the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. In 1955, 1957 and 1962, the subject came before the Economic and Social

Council. In each case, Australia abstained from voting. In the Commission on the Status of Women, in 1955 and 1957, the Australian delegates abstained from voting. In 1962, they voted against the proposition. In 1958, 1959 and 1960, they were absent. The Government, therefore, takes up a different attitude on equal pay in various international bodies. But usually it abstains from voting.

Within this country, however, its record is quite clear. It will do nothing to bring about equal pay. The charter of the International Labour Organisation, which has been part of the law of the land since 1947, laid down that the Federal Government shall-

  1. . arrange subject to the concurrence of the State . . . Governments concerned, for periodical consultations between the federal and the State . . . authorities with a view to promoting within the federal State co-ordinated action to give effect to the provisions of such Conventions and Recommendations.

The Australian Government has not done that. On the Equal Remuneration Convention of 1951, the Government corresponded with the States in 1952 and 1953, bad discussions with them at the Premiers’ Conference in July 1954, corresponded again with them in 1955, and discussed the matter with them again in the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee in April I960. This, therefore, has not been debated for six years. One cannot say that two sets of discussions, one Premiers’ Conference and one departmental conference amount to periodical consultation. Since 1953, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) as Minister for Labour and National Service made a report to the Parliament on the attitude of the States to the Equal Remuneration Convention, there has been a change of Government in at least one State, which would change the attitude.

Both New South Wales, under a Labour Government, and Victoria, under a Labour Government, said back in 1954 and 1953 that they were in favour of the Commonwealth ratifying the Equal Remuneration Convention. South Australia, since the change of Government there last year, has also stated that it is in favour of the Commonwealth ratifying the Convention. Queensland and Tasmania have never stated an attitude. Western Australia opposed the ratification. It is the obligation of the Commonwealth, under the I.L.O. Convention, to have periodical consultations with the States on equal pay. It has had none for the last six years. Before that, it did not have periodical consultations. There has been a change in attitude by one of the States within the last year. 1 have consistently asked the current Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Bury) and his predecessors what indications there have been from the States concerning the ratification of conventions of the l.L.O. The formula which Ministers now use in their replies is -

This information cannot be made available without an excessive amount of work which it rs felt cannot be justified.

Accordingly, members of the Parliament are denied information to which they are entitled concerning the Government’s attitude at conferences which it attends and in carrying out ‘ conventions adopted at those conferences. The Australian Government’s record in ratifying I.L.O. conferences is appalling. Since the Menzies Government was elected, 28 conventions have been adopted by International Labour Office conferences. The Government has ratified two of them. Except for the United States of America and Canada, there are no industrial countries which have so bad a record on ratification as Australia. That record has deteriorated very greatly during the years of the Menzies Government and now the Holt Government.

I mentioned that the United States of America and Canada - both Federal systems - had a worse record that Australia in the ratification of conventions. All told, the Australian Government has ratified 26 out of the 126 conventions which have been adopted. While Australia has ratified more conventions than have been ratified by Canada and the United States of America, the application of the principle of equal pay in Australia lags far behind its application in the United States of America and in Canada. Twenty-seven of the 50 States in the United States have adopted equal pay legislation. They include all the industrialised States in the north east, around the Great Lakes and on the west coast. They comprise over 60 per cent, of the population of the United States, and they comprise 60 per cent, of the female work force of the United States. Furthermore, it was stated in an answer which the Minister gave me recently that the United States has adopted equal pay legislation for persons engaged in interstate-

Mr Chaney:

– Do you mean that females constitute 60 per cent, of the work force?

Mr WHITLAM:

– No. I thank the Minister for his inquiry. What I meant to say was that 60 per cent, of the female work force of the United States is covered by equal pay legislation. Most of this is State legislation. The Congress has recently passed legislation covering women employed in interstate commerce or in manufacture directed to interstate commerce.

In Canada, all provinces except Quebec and Newfoundland have adopted equal pay legislation. That is. 70 per cent, of the population of Canada enjoys the benefit of equal pay legislation. Furthermore, in the other great federal system - West Germany - the Equal Remuneration Convention has been ratified. It has in fact been ratified by 50 nations, including all those in the European Economic Community except the Netherlands, all the Eastern European bloc and all the Scandinavian countries. The convention on discrimination in employment and occupation has been ratified by 53 nations. 1 come now to the precise question of public servants in the national public service. Equal pay is provided in the national public service in the United States of America, Canada, Western Germany, Britain and New Zealand. All the principal English speaking countries other than Australia provide equal pay for their public servants. In alt the great federal systems apart from our own - those of the United States, Canada and Western Germany - equal pay is provided for federal .public servants. Quite apart from the obligations which the Commonwealth ought to urge the States to accept and which it ought itself to accept under the Equal Pay Convention on which the Commonwealth representatives at the International Labour Conference abstained from voting, there are obligations on the Commonwealth under the equal pay recommendation which it supported by its vote. The first of its obligations is to ensure the application of the principle of equal pay to all employees of central government departments or agencies. This obligation is now 15 years old. The Menzies Government never honoured it. The Holt Government has not honoured it and does not propose to honour it in this Bill. The Government has rejected this proposition on every occasion on which members of the Australian Labour Party have proposed the subject for discussion as a matter of urgent public importance. Indeed, when members of the Labour Party proposed an amendment to the Public Service Bill 1962 to provide equal pay for women employees of the Commonwealth, Sir Robert Menzies, as Prime Minister, spoke in opposition to the amendment. He said that equal pay in the Commonwealth Public Service would create an anomaly between women public servants and other women employees and he added: “ I am jolly well not going to do it “.

Mr Peters:

– And he jolly well did not.

Mr WHITLAM:

– He was as good as his word. He jolly well did not. The present Prime Minister is not handling this Bill in its passage through the House. Though it concerns the vast body of men and women for whom he is ministerially responsible, he is leaving the matter to a junior Minister. One can only assume that his attitude is just as stubborn as that of Sir Robert Menzies, though less outspoken.

Mr Ian Allan:

– What is the attitude of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission?

Mr WHITLAM:

– When the 1962 measure was before the Parliament, the Opposition, as it did in the other place last week, attempted to have equal pay provided for Commonwealth public servants for work of equal value. I am not sure whether the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Ian Allan) was present when I pointed out that in 1951 the Commonwealth’s representatives at the International Labour Conference abstained from voting on the Equal Pay Convention but voted in support of the equal pay recommendation which imposes on federal states the obligation to provide equal pay for federal employees.

Mr Ian Allan:

– I spoke of the Arbitration Commission.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Again, I do not know whether the honorable gentleman was present when I said that this Bill continues the attitude always taken in relation to the Public Service Act, which enacts provisions on matters which for other employees are left to arbitration. It is not possible for Commonwealth public servants, for instance, to have their annual, long service or sick leave determined by arbitration tribunals. The conditions relating to leave are laid down in the Act. The Commonwealth does not take, in respect of its own servants, the attitude that the employees should go to arbitration. It enacts provisions dealing with the principal industrial conditions. The Commonwealth, under its international obligations, should have legislated for equal pay for its own employees, as has been done in the other great English speaking democracies and in the other principal federal systems throughout the world. It is quite clear that the present Prime Minister pursues the policy of his predecessor, Sir Robert Menzies, in refusing to give equal pay to women employed in the Commonwealth Public Service.

The remaining matter which I intended to mention touches on arbitration, concerning which my friend from Gwydir interjected earlier. A principal provision of the Bill now before us will amend sections of the Act under which Commonwealth public servants become entitled to receive long service leave or, as the Act describes it, furlough. Two years ago, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ruled that thereafter under Commonwealth awards employees would have the right to long service leave after 15 years’ service, even if they were dismissed for misconduct. The Commonwealth Public Service has always given furlough as a matter of discretion. The present Bill will in some respects amend the provisions relating to furlough but will still leave it as a matter of discretion for the Public Service Board to say whether a Commonwealth public servant is to receive his furlough at all after 15 years’ service. The Commonwealth Government has not left this matter to arbitration, though the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has determined, as I have stated, that in its view 15 years’ service entitles an employee to long service leave, even if he is dismissed for misconduct.

The Commonwealth precludes this benefit for its own servants, lt retains a discretion in respect of its own servants. The Opposition will propose an amendment providing that Commonwealth public servants shall have the same right to long service leave after 15 years’ service as all other persons covered by Commonwealth awards have. One has to decide either that there will be legislation or that there will be arbitration. The present Government, where its own convenience is suited, says: “ Leave it to arbitration “. Where its convenience is suited, it deals with these matters by legislation. In the respects which I have mentioned, the Commonwealth has not left matters to arbitration. In fact, it has legislated to ensure that Commonwealth public servants shall not have the same rights as other employees and that women employed in the Public Service shall have lesser rights than are accorded to women in the public services of the other principal English speaking countries and the other principal federal systems.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7a.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

That the following new clause bc inserted in the Bill- “ 7a. Section 30 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (2.) the words but in prescribing such salaries no variation in salary shall be prescribed solely because of the sex of the occupant of any position ‘.”

The effect of the amendment is that men and women public servants will receive equal pay for work of equal value. The amendment will ensure that the Commonwealth carries out its obligations under the 1951 equal pay recommendation which it supported in the International Labour Conference. The amendment will ensure that women public servants have the same rights in Australia as they enjoy in the United States, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and, to take another federal example, West Germany.

Mr CHANEY:
Minister for the Navy · Perth · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. Our position has been made clear in the Parliament at various times by Prime Ministers and Ministers for Labour and National Service. At present the Commonwealth Public Service pays equal margins to men and women for equal work. It also follows decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in paying to women a basic wage equal to 75 per cent, of the basic wage paid to men. The Government believes that any change in the present method of remunerating women should be through arbitration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) referred in his second reading speech to a statement made in the House this morning concerning this matter by the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt).

Mr Whitlam:

– I do not think the Prime Minister made a statement about equal pay.

Mr CHANEY:

– That is right. I direct the Committee’s attention to a statement made in the House of Representatives on 18th October 1962 by the then Minister for Labour and National Service, now the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon). The points which the Government wishes to make in respect of this matter are set out in that statement.

Question put -

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Whitlam1!* amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 35

NOES: 57

Majority 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 8 to 16 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 17.

Section 68 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - “68.- (1.) . . . “ (4.) Subject to this section, on the first day of

January in every year there accrues to an officer a recreation leave credit, or an addition to bis recreation leave credit, of -

Mr WHITLAM:

– I move -

In paragraph (a), omit “four weeks”.

The effect of the amendment is to ensure that Commonwealth public servants have four weeks annual recreation leave.

The Bill re-enacts the ceiling of three weeks annual leave, which has been imposed on public servants ever since the formation of the Commonwealth Public Service in 1901. At that time, Commonwealth public servants clearly enjoyed an advantage over most other employees in Australia. This advantage has now disappeared. It is impossible for Commonwealth employees to go to arbitration to have their annual leave determined. The Act has always placed a ceiling on their annual leave and the Bill re-enacts the ceiling. Accordingly, we move that the ceiling be raised to four weeks.

Mr CHANEY:
Minister for the Navy · Perth · LP

– I think that this amendment was moved in another place and that the Government declined to accept it. For the purposes of the record here, I want to say that in October 1965 Cabinet considered proposals from employee associations for an increase in the general period of annual recreation leave from three to four weeks. On 14th October 1965, the then Prime Minister issued a statement intimating that the increase would not be granted as the case for an extra week’s leave had not been substantiated. I will summarise the main points of that statement now.

In making comparisons between the Commonwealth and the States and the Commonwealth and other countries, all the facts must be taken into consideration. As an example, the public services in a number of overseas countries do not enjoy the substantial furlough or long service leave entitlements that are available in the Commonwealth Public Service and in other public services in Australia. If an extra week’s leave for the total staff in Commonwealth employment were granted, an additional 5,800 workers would be needed. This would increase the annual wage and salary bill by about $18 million. The increase in anual leave to Commonwealth employees almost certainly would have repercussions throughout the community. A general application of four weeks leave would have the effect of increasing the amount of overtime worked at a time when overtime is already excessive. Additional payments for labour must increase the pressures on wages and prices as competition for labour becomes more intense. In order to offset the loss of one week’s work by the 3.4 million civilian employees - excluding the New South Wales Government workers who already have this four week’s leave - it would be necessary to recruit some 75,000 additional workers. This would be well nigh impossible, as there are very few untapped reserves of labour at the moment.

However, on 10th August 1966, the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) met a further deputation of employee representatives and undertook to place the representations before Cabinet. As I say, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam).

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- The Committee can hardly allow, this important feature of industrial legislation to pass without debate. Over a considerable period, public service representatives have approached the Government and have constantly stressed the importance, of .this matter. Quite recently, I received no fewer than 50 letters from a wide range of public servants. These people perform, outstanding work for the nation and are worthy of more consideration than was evident in the scant treatment given them by the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Chaney) this evening. . The State of New South Wales has readily granted this benefit to its public servants. Surely the people performing manifold duties for the Commonwealth are also worthy of consideration.

Let us consider the nature of the work of public servants, whether they be the top public servants engaged in the planning of the Government’s programme or whether they be employees engaged on the Snowy Mountains scheme. All of them are worthy of special thought and treatment. I refer also to the employees in munitions establishments. They are entitled to special consideration and at least to the same consideration as has been given to public servants employed by the State of New South Wales. I can only ask honorable members to give further thought to this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) in replying to a question that I asked recently said that he would make a state ment before the end of the Parliament. The statement was read to honorable members today. I regret very much that a public statement was made before the Parliament received the courteous and proper treatment to which it is entitled. At this stage, I lodge a protest on behalf of all Commonwealth public servants. I say to them that, if they want to obtain redress for their grievances, the way is clear. They should rally to the Australian Labour Party, which will support their claims.

Question put -

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

56 34

22’

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 20 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 21.

Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended - (a) by omitting sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section:- “ (2.) Where an officer who has continued in the Commonwealth Service for not less than fifteen years ceases to be an officer otherwise than by death, the Board may, in lieu of the grant to him of leave under sub-section (1.) of this section, authorise payment to him of a sum not exceeding his salary for a period equal to the period, or the sum of the periods, of leave on full salary that the officer could have been granted under that sub-section if he had not ceased to be an officer.”; and

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– I move -

In paragraph (a), omit “ may “, insert “ shall “.

This clause deals-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would suggest that honorable members come to order. We might then hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and we would also give “Hansard” the opportunity to hear and take down what is being said.

Mr WHITLAM:

– This clause deals with the grant of long service leave, called furlough, to Commonwealth public servants. It gives a discretion to the Public Service Board to grant long service leave. The amendment would make it obligatory on the Board to grant long service leave after 15 years’ service. This is another instance where a statute of this Parliament denies Commonwealth public servants the benefits which other employees have under awards of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. On 11th May 1964 the Commission gave its decision in two matters - the Metal Trades Employers’ Association and Others and the Amalgamated Engineering Union (Australian Section) and Others; and the Printing and Allied Trades Employers’ Federation of Australia and Others and the Printing Employees’ Union of Australia. I think it can be said that employers were disturbed at the increasingly generous long service leave provisions being made available under State legislation. They therefore took action to create interstate disputes and thus enable themselves to seek Commonwealth awards which would override State Acts. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dealt with the whole question of long service leave, qualifying periods, pro rata payments and the effect of conduct. I will quote two passages only from the decision of the Commission. The first is as follows -

An employee who has completed 10 but not15 years’ service and whose employment is terminated by death or by the employer for any cause other than serious and wilfulmisconduct, or by the employee on account of illness, incapacity or domestic or other pressing necessity will be entitled to pro rata payment.

An employee who has completed 15 years’ service and whose employment is terminated or ceases for any reason, will be emitted to pro rata payment.

The Commission also stated -

Thus our awards will provide that such an employee whose employment is terminated by death or by the employer for any cause other than serious and wilful misconduct, or by the employee on account of illness, incapacity or domestic or other pressing necessity will be entitled to pro rata payment. Neither proviso will apply to an employee who has completed 15 years’ service.

In the Commonwealth Public Service, however, the legislation of this Parliament will override awards of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If a Commonwealth public servant is dismissed after15 years service the grant of long service leave - or furlough - will be purely within the discretion of the Public Service Board. This may be so even if the Board has taken no steps throughout his service to discipline or to warn him. If he is dismissed he loses whatever proportion of long service leave the Board in its discretion, at its caprice, determines. Commonwealth public servants are thus disadvantaged in a way that no other employees under Commonwealth awards are disadvantaged. The Labour Party’s amendment in this place, as in the other place last week, will ensure that Commonwealth public servants have the same right to long service leave as is possessed by employees under Commonwealth awards: no greater but no less.

Mr CHANEY:
Minister for the Navy · Perth · LP

– The Government does not accept this proposed amendment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) must realise this since the amendment was proposed and rejected in another place when the Bill was originally presented. The Public Service Board which will exercise this discretion is a responsible body charged by this Parliament with administering substantial powers, lt is fully capable of exercising its discretion in a proper and reasonable manner, as it has been doing on every aspect of activity which falls within its existing powers. As I have said, we do not accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 27- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 28.

The Second Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ The Department of Defence Production.”.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

At end of clause add “and by adding the words: -

The Department of Education.

The Department of Northern Development.

The Department of Science and Research.’.”.

The amendment seeks to alter the Schedules to the Act. Members of the First Division of the Public Service are those holding the positions in the departments listed in the Schedule. This Schedule is being amended by the Bill. The effect of the amendment I have just proposed would be to authorise the creation of three new Commonwealth departments, the Department of Education, the Department of Northern Development and the Department of Science and Research. It might be said that the Government does not want these departments. The amendment which the Government itself has introduced will abolish the Department of Defence Production. That Department has not been in existence since Sir Eric Harrison was otherwise accommodated.

Mr Stewart:

– That is when he got a bowler hat.

Mr WHITLAM:

– lt dates from the time when it was found that Sir Howard Beale, as he now is, could carry out the functions that he and Sir Eric had carried out between them before Sir Eric was translated. For 10 years the Act has provided for a Department of Defence Production. There has been no such Department. It cannot be said that a department is automatically created by amending the Schedule to provide for these three new departments. However, this convenient opportunity is taken to authorise the creation of three new departments.

The Labour Party moved an amendment in these terms just after the 1963 election. The supervening years and months have made it all the more clear that these departments should be brought into existence. First, there is the Department of Education. The Commonwealth already provides more money for university education than do all the States combined. The Commonwealth provides for education of all kinds more money than most of the States provide for education of all kinds. The Labour Party certainly believes that the Commonwealth should take the same positive steps to investigate, to supervise and to subsidise all forms of education at all levels and of all kinds as all Australians in all walks of life expect the Commonwealth to do in respect of university education.

The Labour Party believes that the Commonwealth’s interest should not be confined within university education at the tertiary level. Quite clearly, the Commonwealth should take an interest in technical training at the tertiary level, in teacher training which is a form of tertiary education basic to all other forms of education. The Labour Party adopts the attitude that the Commonwealth’s interest in education should not commence at the tertiary level. Preparation for tertiary education of all kinds should certainly concern the Commonwealth as well. In fact, there should be greater opportunities for Australians wherever they go to school than have been provided hitherto, than can ever be provided until the Commonwealth itself takes the same steps as it has already taken in relation to university education. Accordingly, we say that the case for a Department of Education is even stronger than it was after the last House of Representatives election.

The next Department is the Department of Northern Development. It is quite clear that the Northern Division of the Department of National Development is not adequately equipped to carry out the functions of northern development. It is unable to compete with other Commonwealth departments, even the Department of Territories which is responsible for the development of so much of the north. It is incapable of dealing with State Governments in Queensland and Western Australia which are responsible for the development of the remaining area of the north.

All Australians are becoming increasingly dependent on northern development. The production of beef and the mining of minerals are the two fields in which Australia can expect to trade profitably. The industrial parts of Australia - the heavily settled parts of Australia - will be unable to pay their way, to secure the capital, the imports or the employment that we expect unless we as a nation earn more money. The quickest way that we as a nation can earn more money is by promoting northern development, particularly in relation to beef and minerals, by national planning, national investment and consortia between the National Government and the State Governments, between the National Government and private enterprise and between the National Government and other governments.

The third department is the Department of Science and Research. In the debate on the estimates for the Department of National Development and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation last year and again this year, and in the debate on the estimates for the Defence Departments, particularly the Department of Supply, last year and again this year, I stated the general arguments for the Commonwealth having greater administrative control of the fields of science and research. I shall give a further illustration of my suggestion by referring to the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission which was tabled in the House a week ago. I direct honorable members to the following comments which the Commission made to the Parliament concerning its research programme into a high temperature, gas cooled reactor system, operating on a uranium/thorium fuel cycle, and moderated by beryllium oxide with the fuel dispersed in the moderator. The Commission reported -

During the year under review, the Commission carried out a detailed technical assessment of the system and noted that, on the basis of the latest experimental and nuclear data, research results indicate that fuel burn-up is lower and chemical processing costs are higher than anticipated earlier. Moreover, there have been substantial improvements in capital and operating costs of competing reactor systems. The Commission concluded that the system is not as attractive for base-load power stations as previously expected and decided to taper off this programme and to transfer the effort to a technical and economic assessment of a heavy water moderated reactor suitable for central power applications in Australia.

The Commission proceeded -

There is an increasing world-wide interest in heavy water moderated reactor systems for the economic production of power. The Commission proposes to supplement its research programme at Lucas Heights by the posting overseas of an increased number of personnel for work on the design and operation of heavy water reactors.

The first conclusion seems to be that the Commission has hitherto experimented in the wrong field. 1 am told that it has been known overseas for five years that the kind of project on which the Commission was working until this year was unlikely to prove economically feasible. On the other hand, the heavy water project, which the Commission calls “ Hifar “, and which it intends to pursue, is now many years old and will contribute little which cannot already be learnt from overseas sources.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr. Chairman, wilh the indulgence of the Committee perhaps I might proceed to take my second period as there does nol seem to be much competition to speak on the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! No other honorable member having sought the call, the Deputy Leader may proceed.

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 thank you and the Committee, Mr. Chairman. It would appear that the Commission has been spending many years and many millions of pounds in buying equipment and employing men for research which the rest of the world seems to have abandoned. It is now proposing to buy equipment and to employ men in research, the results of which are already available overseas. The clear role of the Commission would seem to be to apply the techniques, which it is now going to investigate and which are already well established overseas, in producing power from atomic sources. Its role would seem to be to apply this research. I put this necessarily tentatively, but quite clearly it is very difficult for us in this place to determine matters of science and research, just as it is difficult to determine some other matters of education where these are but ancillary functions of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has so much on his plate that he cannot be expected to keep a check on matters of education, science and research. It is not possible for us to ask a question without notice on such matters and expect an informed reply. It is not reasonable for us to expect that we can raise such matters in general business, in urgency debates, on the adjournment or in estimates debates and have an informative debate upon them. If there were a Minister charged with these matters we could have a debate and we could test them. All we can do at the moment is put questions on the notice paper and wait many weeks for a reply. I have given on earlier occasions, and therefore will not repeat, examples of the lack of coordination between different Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities, and still more between Commowealth and State departments and instrumentalities, in the science and research fields. I quote this further example which has come to our notice since I last spoke on the subject.

Mr CHANEY:
Minister for the Navy · Perth · LP

– I do not think the lack spoken of by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has been evident in the Parliament in the types of debates we have had on the subjects he has mentioned. I think not even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition believes that by amending an Act like this we can create the departments he seeks. Because of this, and because of purely constitutional needs, the Government does not accept the amendment.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

.- I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), which in effect would, if carried, create a Commonwealth department of education, a Commonwealth department of northern development and a Commonwealth department of science and research. I intend to devote my remarks mainly to the first proposition, that is, the creation of a Commonwealth department of education. I think the community must be well aware that today the Commonwealth has more responsibilities in education than are possessed by any one of the States of Australia. As a matter of fact, the Minister in charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research (Senator Gorton) has been very busily preparing a good deal of literature in recent months indicating just how far-reaching the Commonwealth’s present activities are in respect of education. The only regret that we have in the Opposition is that these matters are dealt with in a rather piecemeal way and without co-ordination.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I remind the honorable member for Barton that an amendment such as that moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not open the debate to a wide scale debate on the general subjects. A courtesy is extended to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in regard to the presentation of certain factors in presenting a case for the Opposition. But I would remind the honorable member for Barton of what was said by the Minister for the Navy, that the mere fact of moving an amendment does not establish a department. I suggest to the honorable member that if he goes into the subject matter of education and the part played by the Commonwealth in education he will be going a little wide of the matters referred to in the amendment.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Chairman. I only hope that the electors of Barton will not be disadvantaged as against those of any other representative of this place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member can rest assured that he is not disadvantaged in relation to any other honorable member. I remind him that after the Deputy Leader of the Opposition he is the first honorable member who has spoken on this amendment.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I take it, Mr. Chairman, that I am permitted to indicate that there is in existence a very broad base of Commonwealth activities in education which might sensibly be brought together in a co-ordinated and integrated fashion under a ministry of education or a department of education as is envisaged in this amendment. I want to inform the Committee that the present Minister. Senator Gorton, has produced very recently quite an elaborate amount of material indicating the extent of this Commonwealth activity. 1 hope that I may be permitted just summarily to refer to the extent of the Com- .monwealth participation in education.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I point out lo the honorable member that there is no relevance between the remarks he has just made and the subject matter of the amendment before the Committee.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– Are you saying, Sir, that my remarks would be irrelevant?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s remarks would be irrelevant.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– In other words, I am not permitted to refer to the Common-‘ wealth Office of Education or the Universities Commission?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! These matters are not covered by the amendment before the Committee or by the Bill.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I find it very difficult lo know what can be covered by the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I remind the honorable member that the Committee has before it the Public Service Bill 1966 and that the amendments have been moved to the original Bill.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Whitlam’*) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 34

NOES: 56

Majority 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1904

JUDICIARY BILL 1966

In Committee.

Consideration of Senate’s amendment.

Clause 5. (1.) After section 55 of the Principal Act the following Part is inserted: - “ Part VIIIa- Legal Practitioners. “ 55d.- (1.)….. “ (6.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this section, a law of a Territory may restrict entitlement to practise as a barrister or solicitor in the Territory to persons who have been admitted so to practise by the Supreme Court of the Territory and, where a law of a Territory contains such a restriction, subsections (1.) to (4.), inclusive, of this section do not apply in relation to practice in the Territory.

Senate’s amendment -

Leave out sub-section (6.) of proposed section 55d.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– I moveThat the Senate’s amendment be disagreed to, but that, in place thereof, the following amendment be made -

Omit sub-sections (6.) and (7.) of proposed section 55n, insert the following sub-sections: - “ ‘ (6.) Where-

  1. a law of a Territory contains provisions of the kind referred to in the last preceding sub-section; and
  2. under those provisions, any person referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section who duly applies to the Supreme Court of that Territory to be admitted to practise as a barrister and solicitor in that Territory and satisfies that Court that he is of good fame and character is entitled, notwithstanding that he may reside or practise in a State or in another Territory -

    1. to be admitted to practise as a barrister and solicitor in the first-mentioned Territory; and
    2. upon being so admitted, to prac tise in that Territory, subject only to the same conditions and requirements as apply to other persons admitted to practise in that Territory.

Sub-sections (1.) to (4.), inclusive, of this section do not apply in relation to practice in that Territory. “ ‘ (7.) Nothing in this section applies in relation to practice in a federal court or to practice in the Territory of Papua, the Territory of New Guinea or the Territory of Nauru.”.

The policy of the Government, as expressed in the Bill as originally passed by the House of Representatives, is that it should be possible for each Territory to attain the position where the right of every person to practise as a barrister or solicitor in that Territory flows from Territory law, and that the provisions of the Judiciary Act in relation to legal practice in a Territory should continue only until such time as the matter is regulated by the law of the Territory. The Senate’s deletion of subsection (6.) of the proposed section 55tj from the Bill would not permit this position to be attained in any Territory and would place local legal practitioners in a Territory in a disadvantageous position when compared with that of interstate practitioners practising in that Territory.

I think that I expressed correctly the views of this House on the matter when I said, in the course of the debate on an amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) that all honorable members would want the law of each Territory to establish the right of admission and would desire that that law should cover the whole procedure. I also said that each Territory needed this power to be able to negotiate reciprocity with States on the matter of admission. On this latter question, I intend to alleviate the fears of some honorable members in this House and of the Senate, that under the Bill persons serving their own local interests would be able to create a closed shop. The amendment, if accepted will prevent the creation of a closed shop in any circumstances in any Territory, yet make it possible for all entitlement to practise in the Territory to flow from the law of the Territory without placing each Territory in a position to negotiate reciprocity with the States. The amendment will provide for the law of a Territory to displace the operation of section S5d, giving persons admitted in a State or another Territory the right to practise in a Territory, only when such a law gives to persons admitted in a State or another Territory a right of admission that corresponds broadly to the right of practice under the displaced provision of the Judiciary Act.

The amendment is intended to reconcile as much as possible the Government’s view that each Territory should be able to attain the position where the right to practise law in the Territory flows solely from the provisions of the Territory law, the view of the local practitioners in the Territories that they should not be at a disadvantage in relation to Territory practice when compared with the position of interstate practitioners, and the Senate’s view that State practitioners must have a legislative guarantee of access to practice in Territory courts which cannot be taken from them except by Parliament itself. Therefore, under the amendment I am moving now, the new subsection (6.) provides for sub-sections (1.) to (4.) to cease to apply to a particular Territory when the law of that Territory provides for the admission of persons to practise in the Territory, and provides that a person whose name is on the roll of legal practitioners however described of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and who duly applies to the Supreme Court of a Territory to be admitted to practice in that Territory and satisfies that Court that he is of good fame and character, is entitled to be so admitted, notwithstanding that he may reside or practise in a State or another Territory.

Thus the question of the rights of State practitioners will be fully covered by an Act of this Parliament, but, in contrast with the provision under the Senate amendment under which the whole of the entitlement to practise in a Territory could never flow solely from the Territory law, under the amendment now moved the position can be achieved where in each Territory all rights of practice in Territory courts do flow from the Territory law; there is a proper courtpractitioner relationship between each Supreme Court and all persons practising before it, and the conditions of practice are the same for local and interstate practitioners.

The period which has elapsed since the Senate amended the Bill has enabled me to receive representations that the Territories of Papua and New Guinea and Nauru are in a special position and the conditions in the proposed new sub-section (6.) should not apply to them. I have come to the conclusion that this is a most desirable step.

These Territories stand in a different position to the mainland and smaller external Territories which properly can be considered for this purpose as part of the Australian legal system proper. The opportunity ought to be given to Papua and New Guinea and Nauru to decide the terms of admission to their Territories of Australian legal practitioners. Therefore, the amendment I am moving includes an amendment to the proposed sub-section (7.) of section 55d, which by the addition of a few words makes that proposed section altogether inapplicable to those two Territories.

Mr BOWEN:
Parramatta

.- I wish to speak in support of the amendment to clause 5 which inserts sub-sections (6.) and (7.) as proposed by the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden). I suggest that this course is to be preferred to the deletion of sub-section (6.) which was proposed by the Senate amendment. In order to explain this perhaps one should go back to the earlier sections, from section 55a onwards which were to be inserted in the Bill as it stood before the Senate amendment. Under section 55a the entitlement to practise in any Federal court which was gained by being admitted pursuant to rules of court was allowed to stand. Then, under section 55b, a person who, for the time being, was entitled to practise as a barrister or solicitor, or both, of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory automatically had a right to practise in any Federal court. Section 55c provided for the keeping of a register of practitioners at the principal registry of the High Court and a copy of this was to be kept at every district registry. Then one comes to section 55d. The Senate amendment would have left sub-sections (1.) to (4.) operating. Subsection (1.) provides that a person whose name is on the role of barristers or solicitors of the High Court or on the role of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory is entitled to practise as a barrister and/or solicitor in any Territory.

Pausing there, this would mean that a solicitor or barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales automatically would have the right to practise, say, in the Australian Capital Territory. Anyone whose name was on the High Court roll would be entitled to practise in, say, the Australian Capital Territory. Sub-section (2.) of section 55d provided that a person is not entitled to practise as a barrister or solicitor in a Territory ‘ by reason of the last preceding sub-section “ at any time at which his entitlement to practise as a barrister or solicitor is suspended under the law of his own State, or the law of his own entitlement if it were, say, the High Court. Again, if it were proved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court of a Territory that a person entitled to practise by reason of his entitlement elsewhere was guilty of conduct which justified action by the court, he could be disentitled by an order of the Territory court, or could be suspended, and the court might revoke or vary any such order.

This meant that the court of, say, the Australian Capital Territory to a degree had a control over practitioners who were entitled to practise because they had the necessary qualification from a State Supreme Court, or from, say, the roll of the High Court. What is now involved, as I understand it, in the new sub-section (6.) introduced by the Attorney-General’s amendment is that Territory laws may now provide for local admission provisions. They may prescribe conditions under which one will be admitted lo practice in the Territory notwithstanding that there is a qualification to practise in the Supreme Court of another State or notwithstanding that one may be on the roll of the High Court. However, the objection that was raised in the Senate to this - that it might lead to what was called a closed “shop in the Territory - is, I think, avoided by the compromise proposal that is involved in this new sub-section (6.). I say that, because honorable members will notice that under the new amendment the laws governing admission which are passed by the Territory will not supersede the right to practice which one has from the Supreme Court of another State or from the High Court roll unless these Territory admission laws fulfil certain conditions and comply with certain requirements laid down in this sub-section.

Broadly speaking, they must provide for non-residents who are practitioners on the High Court roll or the roll of a Supreme Court to be entitled to admission simply on application supported by evidence of good fame and character. When admitted they may be subject to such rules as are applicable generally to practitioners in the

Territory. For example, if there is a requirement in the rules governing practitioners in this Territory that they have to contribute so many dollars to a library fund, a practitioner from Sydney coming from the Supreme Court of New South Wales would be subject to a like requirement. As I understand it, if a solicitor comes from Sydney to the Territory and wishes to practise, and there are rules here under these provisions dealing with, perhaps, the requirement to keep trust funds in a particular way, or requiring solicitors to subject themselves to a particular kind of audit, then the Sydney solicitor will be subjected, so far as he has funds in this Territory, to those rules.

I think it is desirable that this should be so. I think that otherwise there would be a gap which it would be undesirable for us to allow to continue. So long as there is no requirement that one must reside in this Territory before being allowed admittance, then the position of having a closed shop should not arise. As I see it, although the laws under this provision may prescribe conditions under which people practise in the Territory, it would be inconsistent with this provision to have a condition that one should reside here. I consider, therefore, that the proposal should be supported. The profession is growing rapidly, particularly in this Territory. There are already seven or eight barristers practising separately, and there is a substantial number of solicitors here. It is obvious that provisions are needed to enable the court to exercise a degree of control, and control of the type I have specified should also apply to those coming from other States and practising in the Territory to the extent that they deal with funds here or practise here. I support the amendment.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The Opposition accepts the amendment. This is a good illustration of the benefits that can flow from further consideration on such technical matters. It has been pointed * out by many honorable members in recent times that we could, with advantage, develop a committee system. Very clearly there are matters of law or commerce on which debates could be much less formally and mare fruitfully conducted in committee. The same result has been achieved in this case.

Most of the Bills on which amendments made in the Senate have been accepted fully or in a modified form in this House, have been legal Bilk.

The matter which the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) has himself sponsored on this occasion is one which I strongly support. I think it is proper that we should encourage New Guinea to prepare for its independence in the law as in other respects. Earlier tonight, reference was made to the fact that members of the Commonwealth Industrial Court are not appointed to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and vice versa. The Territory Court has always been kept separate from the courts of the mainland and the courts of some of the lesser territories which might be expected to remain part of Australia, such as Norfolk Island. I applaud the fact that the Attorney-General has extended this principle on this occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

House adjourned at 10.44 p.m.

page 1908

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated -

Aborigines: Commonwealth Employees. (Question No. 1832.)

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What procedure has been adopted concerning equal pay for Aboriginal employees of the Commonwealth, pursuant to my question of 9th March 1966 (“ Hansard “, page 57) and his answer of 10th May 1966 (“Hansard”, page 1663)?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -

The question of rates of pay for Aborigines in Commonwealth employment is still under consideration in Canberra and Darwin. An announcement will be made by the Government as soon as practicable.

Musical Education. (Question No. 1986.)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he consider, as a practical contribution to Australian art, the setting up of a national advisory body for musical education, the functions of which would include (a) stimulating and co-ordinating a more uniform policy of musical education throughout Australia, (b) assisting the more distinctive talents of musically gifted children, whose general education is of the foremost importance, yet whose specialized training must be serious from the start, (c) assisting financially those parents who have musically gifted children, but cannot afford to have them properly taught and (d) investigating the desirability of registering teachers of music on some uniform qualifying basis?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -

The ‘State Governments have important responsibilities in musical education, and the Commonwealth is already engaged in a number of practical measures to strengthen musical education in Australia. All university departments of music, including the Conservatoria in Melbourne and Adelaide which are part of the Universities there, receive help through our university grants while the Commonwealth will provide for the coming triennium capital and recurrent grants to the Queensland Conservatorium of Music as a College of Advanced Education. Commonwealth University advanced education and technical scholarships are being used by students studying music and the Australian U.N.E.S.C.O. Committee for Music has used Commonwealth funds in holding several seminars which were designed to promote the education of musicians in Australia. The specific questions raised by the honorable member concern policy matters.

Cigarette Advertising. (Question No. 2076.)

Mr Hayden:

n asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice) -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to television advertising by some cigarette companies which asserts that to participate in and be an integral part of the bright, young, gay, fun-loving “with it “ group of society, cigarette smoking must be indulged in?
  2. In view of the apparent relationship of lung cancer and cigarette smoking, will he introduce statutory standards to control the type of advertising used by cigarette manufacturers on television?
  3. Will he arrange for all television cigarette advertising to be preceded by a verbal and visual warning that there is a relationship between lung cancer and cigarette smoking?
Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows -

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board informs me that whilst television advertisements frequently show cigarettes in use during various forms of social activity, it would not be correct to say that such advertisements assert that cigarette smoking is an integral part of contemporary life for young people. 2 and 3. No. The Government believes that a programme of action directed to educating people, particularly young persons in the risks attendant on smoking is the most effective course to follow. However, following a request by State and Commonwealth health authorities, a voluntary code governing the advertising of cigarettes on television has been adopted by agreement between manufacturers and television station licensees. The code is designed to ensure, among other things, that such advertising will not be directed to young people.

War Service Homes Act. (Question No. 2100.)

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Housing, upon notice -

What are the (a) dates and (b) texts of ministerial directions issued under section 20 of the War Service Homes Act since the then Minister’s answer to me on 11th April 1961 (“Hansard”, page 699)?

Mr Bury:
Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answers to the honorable member’s question -

Ministerial directions issued since 11th April 1961 under section 20 of the War Service Homes Act as are follows -

On 14th June 1962, the Minister directed that additional loans should not be provided to discharge road making costs except in cases of extreme financial hardship. 2. On 22nd August 1962, the Minister directed that as a general rule additional loans should be restricted to the provision of essential extra sleeping accommodation, and to the installation of the following utility services -

Water services;

Electric light;

Gas;

Sewerage;

Drainage;

Hot water systems.

Civil Aviation. (Question No. 2134.)

Mr Devine:

e asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What are the names of air safety officers stationed at Sydney and Canberra airports whose duties include on the spot checks of aircraft loadings, refuelling and maintenance procedures and adjudication in disputes between pilots and airline companies?
  2. What are the normal working hours of these officers?
Mr Swartz:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows -

  1. The Department employs several categories of staff who are responsible for checking air safety. In particular, examiners of airmen, airworthiness surveyors and airworthiness engineers perform spot checks of aircraft loading and refuelling and maintenance procedures, to ensure that the procedures and standards laid down by the Department are being observed by the airlines and are proving effective. The airlines are also required to have their own safely surveillance staff who perform a similar role.

The Department does not have s’.alt for the purpose of adjudicating in disputes between pilots and the airline companies. However, pilots have statutory responsibility under the Air Navigation Regulations not to fly any aircraft which they consider to be unairworthy.

Examiners of airmen are based at each of the Department’s Regional offices and not at airports - although they spend considerable time at airports. Airworthiness surveyors and engineer; are stationed at airports where substantial maintenance activity exists. They make scheduled and unscheduled visits to other airports at frequencies determined by the amount of work being done at those airports. No airworthiness surveyors or engineers ore stationed at Canberra but they can be sent there quickly if required. The following eleven are stationed at Sydney airport -

  1. L. Miller, Senior Airworthiness Surveyor.
  2. G. Graham, Airworthiness Engineer.
  3. Garner, Sectional Airworthiness Surveyor.
  4. J. Lynch, Sectional Airworthiness Surveyor.
  5. Wharton, Airworthiness Surveyor. C. Massey, Airworthiness Surveyor.
  6. L. Schoenauer, Airworthiness Surveyor. P. Swift, Airworthiness Surveyor. G. Lorkin, Airworthiness Surveyor. A. Etchells, Airworthiness Surveyor. G. Smith, Airworthiness Surveyor.

    1. These officers normally work between 8.30 a.m. and 4.51 p.m. Monday to Friday, but they are on call at all times as may be necessary.

The Australian system of safety surveillance is similar to, although generally considered to be more strict than, those in use in many other countries.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1966/19661018_reps_25_hor53/>.