House of Representatives
4 April 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope), took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1037

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Vietnam: Establishment of Diplomatic Relations

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

  1. That the implementation of the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam ls essential.
  2. That the aforementioned Agreement provides for equal status between the Provisional Revolutionary Government and the Government of the Republic of (south) Vietnam.
  3. That the provisions of the aforementioned Agreement are being fundamentally violated by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. immediately establish diplomatic relations with the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam.
  2. bring influence to bear in order to enable the implementation of the aforementioned Agreement. In particular, this demands the immediate release from prison of the political prisoners held by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, to enable the ‘third force* neutralists to effectively participate in the implementation of the aforementioned Agreement.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

  1. that, to allow true religious freedom, Governments will make no law respecting religion, neither to prohibit the free exercise thereof nor to compel the individual citizen to support the religion of others.
  2. that nearly all non-State schools are church schools which to a greater or lesser degree promote a specific creed.
  3. that, about SO per cent of church schools are Roman Catholic schools, which Roman Catholic spokesmen explicitly state to be extensions of the church.
  4. that, the use of Commonwealth funds to aid church schools compels every taxpayer to finance the religion of others, whether he wishes to, or not.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will restore to the Australian people true religious freedom, which can only exist when Church and State are legally separated in form and substance. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Klugman.

Petition received.

Aid for Developing Countries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of tha House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned students and staff members of Monash University believe:

That hunger, illiteracy, abject poverty and injustice are intolerable anywhere in the world

That the knowledge, skills and resources to change these unjust conditions now exist

That to obtain justice among peoples, world financial and trading systems can and must be changed

That Australia has the capacity to play a more significant part in enabling the developing countries to achieve improved social conditions for all their people. Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

Australia’s Official Development Assistance in 1972-73 be increased to at least $240 million

Australia’s aid policies be reviewed so that aid given provides maximum benefit to the peoples of developing countries

Australia’s trade policies be reviewed to provide more favourable conditions for developing countries. by Mr Staley.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

  1. The Red Kangaroo and many other marsupials, through the shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.
  2. None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a Complete Cessation of Commercialisation can Ensure the Survival of our National Emblem.
  3. It is an indisputable fact that No Natural Resources can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:

The Management of Australia’s Wildlife be controlled by the Commonwealth Government and sufficient wardens appointed to enforce the laws.

The shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes be stopped immediately.

The export of all kangaroo products from Australia be banned.

The Commonwealth Government establish large National Parks of good quality land as major tourist attractions.

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

Petition received.

page 1038

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that His Excellency, Hammer DeRoburt, President of the Republic of Nauru, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honourable members I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.

Honourable members - Hear, hear! (His Excellency, Hammer deRoburt, thereupon entered the chamber and was seated accordingly.)

page 1038

QUESTION

UNITED STATES DOLLAR

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Was he correctly reported from Washington on 29th March as expressing confidence in the American dollar? Did he say that he was reasonably assured that the dollar would not fall any further? Is he aware that the day before he made his statement in Washington, the Minister for Minerals and Energy stated in this place that it was common knowledge that the American dollar was on the downgrade, and that he repeated this statement only yesterday? Was the Minister for Minerals and Energy referring to the Treasurer when he said: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’? Who is right in this conflict of opinion in the Ministry?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– Sometimes I think there are none so deaf as those who will not heed. I have had discussions about the future of the US dollar. I do not have to defend the US dollar. I think the wisest statement I have heard in this context was made by Mr Kearns of the Export-Import Bank. When he was asked shortly after the devaluation of the American dollar: ‘What is wrong with the American dollar?’ he said: ‘There is nothing much wrong with the American dollar at home’. This highlights the difficulties. America isless dependent than most countries upon export and import trade. It is much less dependent, for instance, than is Australia. In Australia we get a (figure of somethinglike 25 per cent to 30 per cent when we add our exports and imports together, in a sort of curious conjunction, and relate them to our gross domestic product, whereas in the US the figure is only 5 per cent or 6 per cent.

Nevertheless, as far as the future is concerned, as Mr Schultz and others who attended the meetings that I attended suggested, unless internal discipline is applied in the US - the main internal discipline must be in relation to the flow of capital in future - I do not think there can be any certainty about the future of the parity of the United States dollar. I was assured by those who are the custodians of that currency, namely, Mr Schultz as head of the Treasury and Dr Arthur Burns as head of the Federal Reserve Bank, that they believe the dollar has reached its bottom. They adhere to that view. But I simply repeat that I do not think anybody can be categorical about the future of any currency until an attempt is made to grapple seriously with the problems of better terms of trade and some better regulation of the flows of capital. The United States is involved in all those sorts of things. It has difficulties in resolving the proper ratio between itself and Japan. I think-

Sir John Cramer:

– What about Mr Connor’s statement? Tell us something about that.

Mr CREAN:

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy expressed a view which I think is consonant with what I am now saying, that nobody can be certain. But insofar as this-

Sir John Cramer:

– He was very certain.

Mr CREAN:

– I am not one who tries to be clever about a situation like this.

Mr Snedden:

– You cannot be.

Mr CREAN:

– I cannot be any cleverer than you. We both have to be as clever as we can in the face of complex circumstances, many of which are beyond our ability to control. I do not have to defend the status of the United States dollar; I have to defend the status of the Australian dollar and I believe that I have done so very successfully.

page 1038

QUESTION

SAND MINING: MYALL LAKES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. Did His Royal Highness Prince Philip recently visit the sand mining operations in the Myall Lakes region of New South Wales? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a Press release issued by the Leader of the Opposition in which he appears to have espoused the cause of unionists employed by a sand mining company in the Myall Lakes area of New South Wales? Has he stated that Commonwealth powers will be used to prevent sand mining operations which have been approved or may be approved in the future?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– lt is true that Prince Philip visited the Myall Lakes area where sand mining is under way, and I have had my attention drawn to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition. At the moment the New South Wales State Planning Authority has declined permission for a mining company to mine the sands in the high dunes around the lakes area. The mining company has protested, and an appeal is being heard against the decision of the New South Wales State Planning Authority on this very question. It is being heard by Mr Bunning. Of course we are very interested in this. I am interested because as Minister for the Environment I was invited to visit the area and see what was involved, and I will make no more comments on the possible outcome of that inquiry at this stage. As for the question about whether we would use our powers to prevent the export of the products of mining, it has already been indicated by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that in cases when the national interest is best served by steps like that we will certainly take them, and in cases where it is necessary to protect the environment that decision will be taken only after a very careful consideration of all the factors. That is what the concept of environmental impact statements is about. If the balance is in favour of conserving an area, if needs be we could use those powers but. as I point out at this stage, that is irrelevant. The New South Wales State Planning Authority has declined permission for mining in the area, and at the moment an inquiry is proceeding into this very problem.

page 1039

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION DOCUMENT: ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Because the conspiracy which he said stimulated Senator Murphy’s police raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was shared by the Prime Minister’s own Department and his other Department, Foreign Affairs, and principally supported by the Attorney-General’s Department, why was ASIO rather than the other departments singled out for the spectacular raid? Given that the Department of Foreign Affairs had the dominant role in the alleged plot, as read out by the Prime Minister yesterday in an excerpt from an ASIO document, and given the seriousness which he ascribed to it as a conspiracy, why did not Senator Murphy bring the matter immediately to his attention rather than allow him to hear about it by other means after the event, on his own acknowledgment, and after it had been widely reported? Why did Senator Murphy attempt to obtain the information he felt he needed by this method rather than by proper administrative means and in doing so avoid a charade and preserve the viability of ASIO? If the Prime Minister has not ascertained this information, as one would presume it was his duty to do as Prime Minister, why has he not done so? As the Commonwealth Police were present in the conspiracy and therefore fully involved, why was it necessary for one part of the conspiracy to raid another part of it?

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

– The word ‘conspiracy’ was first used by the right honourable gentleman, not by me. The right honourable gentleman used the term first by way of interjection when I was answering a question asked by him. He said:

What about the conspiracy between AttorneyGeneral’s and Foreign Affairs?

I answered:

The right honourable gentleman asks a question about conspiracy, lt would certainly, on the face of it, indicate that there was a conspiracy between public servants to withhold the truth from the Parliament.

I have been very careful nol to assert that there has been a conspiracy. It is conceivable that the report which the ASIO representative made and which I quoted was inaccurate. It is possible that the ASIO representative misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said by the representative of the Attorney-General’s Department and/ or what was said by the representatives of the Foreign Affairs Department. I do not take it on myself to state that the report is inaccurate, or that, if it was accurate, there was a conspiracy. I said that inquiries are in train in this matter. I should have thought that the matter would have been absorbed by any reasonable person on its first statement. The Attorney-General obtained this document from the ASIO quarters in Canberra late at night on Thursday, 15th March. He told me of the contents in the afternoon of Friday, 16th. I acted the same day.

page 1040

QUESTION

PILBARA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: WATER SUPPLY

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In directing a question to the Minister for Northern Development I refer to the proposal to pipe gas into Western Australia from Palm Valley. Is the Minister aware that the extent to which development will follow the introduction of gas into the Pilbara and other parts of Western Australia will depend largely on a secure and plentiful water supply which at present is not available in some of the areas? Is it correct that with today’s expertise no real engineering problem would occur in damming and piping water from the northern rivers of Western Australia to Perth and places between and beyond? If so, has any study been made, and with what result, to ascertain the cost and also, what is extremely important in the circumstances, the time required to complete such a project? If a study has been made is there any intention of carrying out a survey in the near future?

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

– One of the great paradoxes in the development of the resources of northern. Australia is the serious shortage of water which occurs periodically in provincial cities and towns and in rural areas in close proximity to millions of acre feet of water which annually flow wastefully to the sea. This happens in the honourable member’s own electorate as in other parts of Australia, including northern Queensland. Regarding the development of the Pilbara, I assume that the honourable member is speaking about the proposed Pilbara complex, lt is certainly true that the two most important variables associated with the successful development of this area will be the supply of cheap power, in the form of gas, and also the supply of water. I have seen dam sites in the area. Engineers tell me they would be capable of harnessing the waters of the Fortescue River which would supply large quantities of water for the industrial complex. The same principles apply to the waters of the Gascoyne and Murchison rivers, linking up with a possible water pipeline to Perth.

In the northern areas of Queensland a similar principle applies. It is absurd that a major city like Townsville should be short of water year in and year out when beside it is one of the greatest rivers in Australia - the Burdekin - which annually discharges millions of acre feet of water wastefully to the sea. The Australian Government has always believed that the harnessing of water for soundly based schemes is a great national asset.

In conjunction with the States, because after all the initiative must come from them, the Government is determined to harness water resources for soundly based schemes to supply water not only to towns and cities but also for the progressive development of Australia’s natural resources. The initiative must come from the Western Australian Government with respect to the particular pipeline mentioned. As far as I am aware there have been no studies to date to link the northern and southern areas but I shall certainly bring this matter to the attention of the State authorities.

page 1040

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the AttorneyGeneral’s statement in the Senate yesterday that he discussed with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet the whole matter of the course he took in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation affair and why he took that course, and that he outlined to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet his reasons for taking that course, will the Prime Minister now assure the House that he did not deliberately mislead the Parliament and the Press yesterday? Will the Prime Minister reconsider his statement that he did not know why the AttorneyGeneral visited the Canberra office of ASIO? Does he not agree that on the face of it it seems that there is a conspiracy between the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General and the Cabinet to withhold the truth from Parliament?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– We now have a Prime Minister who will tell the truth in Parliament and outside the Parliament, under privilege or without privilege, and we have a Deputy Prime Minister and an Attorney-General of whom the same can be said.

page 1040

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

page 1040

QUESTION

DOCUMENT: ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Are the permanent heads of departments responsible for all the business of their departments and are they required to advise their Ministers on all matters relating to their departments? Does the very serious charge of conspiracy laid by the Prime Minister yesterday - whatever today’s qualification - involve the permanent heads of his own Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General’s Department?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– For the second time today, 1 have not said that there was a conspiracy between heads of departments. Even the Leader of the Opposition has not said that. 1 have not said, although the Leader of the Opposition volunteered the suggestion, that there was a conspiracy between officers of 2 departments, i have expressly said today that I make no such assertion. I make no such assumption. 1 would have thought that all honourable gentlemen would be concerned at the statement that was made in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation report from which I quoted. If that statement is correct it would be fair enough to say, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested by way of interjection yesterday, that there was a conspiracy. However, if the report was not an accurate one or if it is the case that an ASIO representative misunderstood or misinterpreted the proceedings at the meeting, there is also a great deal of concern, surely, not only among members of the Parliament but also among members of the public. It should be recalled that employees of ASIO make reports on a great number of people who, for instance, seek appointment or promotion in the Commonwealth Public Service, and on a great number of people who seek to be naturalised as Australian citizens. If there is an inaccurate report either through malevolence or incompetence that is a matter of very great concern. If this report is inaccurate one may doubt whether the person who made it is fit to hold the position which he at present holds. But I do not make assertions or assumptions about malevolence or incompetence of ASIO representatives or about a conspiracy between members of the Public Service from different departments or in any one department. I have said, and 1 suppose I have to say it again for those who are too dense to absorb it the first or second time, that I initiated inquiries as soon as I knew. I knew in less than a day. The inquiries are in train.

page 1041

QUESTION

FINANCIAL LOSSES BY COMPANIES

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to a reported financial loss totalling some $17m incurred by member companies of the Alexander Barton group. Is it a fact that the moneys raised to finance the activities of the group drew benefits under the Commonwealth taxation law? In view of the Commonwealth’s interest in this matter, will the Minister take immediate steps to have the matter referred for full inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for the Northern Territory · ALP

– Yes, my attention has been drawn to the matter. It was drawn to it by the honourable member for Hawker who is well known for his concern about matters of this sort and his long-standing interest in them. The reports suggest that about $20m was raised by this group of companies, or some of them, and that something approaching $20m was lost over a period. Of course, when one hears of these reports and one sees them apparently substantially confirmed one has to bear in mind that the money is never lost. In large measure it goes somewhere. In large measure it goes to people who do not deserve it and should not have it and it goes at the cost of people who should have it and are suffering as a result of these types of activities. In large measure I think it also has to be said that this type of behaviour, where it occurs and where it is observed, is a consequence of 23 years of a style of government that allowed this country to have a system of taxation that permits it and encourages it. It is also a consequence of a lack of uniform companies legislation, or any companies legislation with teeth that could stop it and the nonexistence in this country of securities and exchange type legislation and a securities and exchange commission. This Government is determined to remedy those defects at the earliest opportunity. I will do what the honourable member for Hawker has suggested. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Attorney-General and see what can be done about it as a matter of urgency.

page 1041

QUESTION

TRANSMISSION OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL BY POST

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Is the Postmaster-General aware of the transmission by the Post Office of unsolicited material which, at best, could only be described as offensive to the recipient? Is he also aware that there seems to be a very clear campaign to post this material to females, which has caused them a great deal of distress? Will the Postmaster-General take steps to consult his Cabinet colleagues as to whether an amendment to the Post and Telegraph Act is desirable to prevent the Post Office being used as a carrier of material that has given a great deal of offence to a large number of my constituents in the past few weeks?

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that many people in Australia are receiving offensive material which they did not solicit. I understand that this matter has been the subject of many discussions with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Further, I understand that in 1972 the States suggested to the Department that it should do something about amending the relevant legislation. On that occasion the Department declined to amend it. It is true to say, as the honourable member for Franklin said, that people should not be permitted to be offended simply because the mails are being misused and they are receiving material which they in no way sought. A lot of the material is sent from outside of Australia. There are some technical and legal difficulties as to how to prevent this practice continuing. It appears clear that there must be an amendment of the Act. I think that would involve a discussion with my colleague, the Attorney-General. I will undertake, as a matter of urgency, to have that discussion and ensure that some submission is made to Cabinet at an early date.

page 1042

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Unless there was a conspiracy, what justification was there for Senator Murphy’s raid on the Melbourne headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? If it is possible that the ASIO officer misunderstood what was said, what do the other departments - Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General’s and the other members of the interdepartmental committee - say? Two of those departments are the honourable gentleman’s own departments. How can a possibly incorrect report by an ASIO officer support the raid on the Melbourne office to preserve information as both the Prime Minister and Senator Murphy have claimed? Is it not clear that Senator Murphy believed there had been a correct report by the ASIO officer to the extent of dispatching 27 police officers to ASIO headquarters to close all the safes and enclose all staff as they came on duty? He said that he was given information on 16th March, in the afternoon, and that he acted on the same day. What action did he take on that day and what has been the progress of the action since? Will he inform the House here and now exactly what action he has taken and what he expects to be the result of it?

Mr Whitlam:

– Could I ask the right honourable gentleman to repeat the question?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Certainly. 1 would be glad to. Mr Speaker, yesterday the honourable gentleman avoided a question by saying that he was taken by surprise. I am glad to know that today he will attempt to answer questions. The question is this: Unless there was a conspiracy - the term used by the honourable gentleman yesterday - what justification was there for Senator Murphy’s raid on the Melbourne headquarters of ASIO? If it was possible that the ASIO officer misunderstood what was said at the meeting, what do representatives who were present from other departments - Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General’s and Prime Minister’s - say was said? Two of those departments are the honourable gentleman’s own departments. How can a possibly incorrect report by the ASIO officer support the raid to preserve information, which is the reason given by Senator Murphy and the Prime Minister for the raid on the Melbourne headquarters? ls it not clear that Senator Murphy believed it was a correct report to the extent of dispatching 27 policemen to seal safes and to enclose the staff of the Organisation as they came on duty? The honourable gentleman said that he heard of the meeting on the afternoon of 16th March - that is after the raid had occurred - and that he acted the same day. I ask him: What action did he take that day to unravel this extraordinary situation? What has been the progress of the action he has taken? What does he expect to be the outcome of that action?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– 1 heard the contents of the ASIO report from which I quoted yesterday on the afternoon of Friday. 16th March. I immediately took action to follow it up. as I told the right honourable gentleman yesterday. I said:

I have taken action in this matter which is still in train.

Mr Holten:

– What action?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not propose to say what the action is, because, if I do, honourable members and the public will be able to make assumptions concerning such persons as may be under suspicion of misconduct in this matter.

Mr Fairbairn:

– What does that mean?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable gentleman should know that if, for instance, a public servant is guilty of misconduct, action is available to the permanent head of the officer’s department to take against him under the Public Service Act. There are tribunals to hear these matters and so on. In the present case there are some departments - the right honourable gentleman does not correctly list the departments, incidentally-

Mr Snedden:

– You refuse to make them public.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Leader of the Opposition, as I said yesterday, can find out who was at this meeting. Tn the first version of his question the Leader of the Opposition referred to an inter-departmental committee. There is not an inter-departmental committee. However, the right honourable gentleman can find out what departments were represented at the meeting. I also told him that, if he wished, I would tell him who was there. There were representatives from some departments and from some agencies. If I use any more specific term, such as a commissioner, a permanent head or a director-general, then honourable gentlemen will be able to see who is under suspicion. I use the general term ‘head’ by which I may mean a director-general, a commissioner or a permanent head. A head or heads is or are taking action in this matter. I will not be more precise, because T would be casting aspersions on one or more individuals if I were. As I said yesterday, that would be unfair lo such person or persons.

page 1043

QUESTION

SEIZURE OF WORKS OF ART

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question about raids. Is he aware that police Under the control of the Victorian Chief Secretary have seized posters of Michelangelo’s David? Can he say which other notable works of arts will be threatened if this action is accepted as a precedent? Will he act to ensure that no Australian is denied a full access to the artistic heritage of mankind?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am sure that the honourable gentleman as the father of a teenage daughter shows for her welfare the proper solicitude that all Victorian members of

Parliament, State and Federal, should show: I make no bones about it; I applaud the courageous action of Mr Meagher, the Victorian Chief Secretary, in impounding these posters of Michelangelo’s David. I would wish that all State capitals had similarly effective guardians. I would not want Melbourne, my birthplace, or Sydney, my habitat, to be affronted by such works.

Mr Fox:

– Say what is on the other side of them.

Mr WHITLAM:

– That is the trouble. This one is larger than life and full front. I do not want the Continental museum in our country. If one goes to the Accademia in Florence one can see the obverse of Michelangelo’s David, but not in perspective. That is, one sees the whole blatant work from every other point in that gallery. Not only that; another copy is in the city square and a third is in the Piazzale on the other side of the river. The Florentines seem to have an obsession with David. 1 went with the honourable gentleman - I am sure it was up a flight of stairs - to the Bargello and there was that other pornographer Donatello’s David, but admittedly on a more seemly scale. I do not believe that people should send up the guardians of our morals in this way. I was appalled to see that in the great new gallery in Melbourne the Eucharistic Congress was commemorated by a reproduction, at close quarters, of the Sistine Chapel with Adam in as blatant a posture. In Sydney there is the Archibald Fountain which has not merely one but, to my memory, 3 naked male figures for everybody in the park - man, woman and child - to see.

Mr Snedden:

– I raise a point of order. If the honourable gentleman wishes to entertain his Party and to display his erudition would he do it in the Caucus and leave question time to important matters of State?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will leave the right honourable gentleman to visit Brussels where he will see a little boy, in public, acting as I am sure he would.

page 1043

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION DOCUMENT

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Since there were only a small group present on 2nd March at the departmental and agencies meeting which was allegedly plotting against the Government, why has it taken more than 2 weeks to ascertain whether or not a one-sentence report of a single decision recorded by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation representative was accurate? If, as the Attorney-General told the Senate, there were conflicting versions of what occurred, will the Prime Minister outline to the House the other versions? What individual has the responsibility for this investigation? If reports that a senior member of the Prime Minister’s own staff is conducting the investigation are accurate, and given the slowness of the activity, is the House to assume that the supergirl contest has been given a higher priority?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– There is no member of my staff conducting any investigation into this matter. I mentioned that a head was, or heads were, making inquiries. In certain eventualities there can then be a tribunal appointed to deal with the matter.

page 1044

QUESTION

SEDATIVE TABLETS

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health who will be aware that his Department removed 6 brands of pain killing sedative tablets from the pharmaceutical benefits schedule. Is the Minister aware that in an article in the ‘Melbourne Herald’ of 27th March Sir Leonard Mallen. the Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, stated that in the past 4 or 5 years probably hundreds of pensioners have died from taking these tablets? In order to allay the fears of many elderly people, some of whom have contacted me, and in view of the fact that it has been found that these tablets are not the most suitable sedatives for old people, can the Minister say whether there is any evidence that many elderly people have died as a result of taking them, or is this a personal opinion of Sir Leonard Mallen?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Analgesic and sedative combinations, to which the honourable member has referred, have not as yet been removed from the schedule of benefits. I have told the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee that it is the wish of the Government that the reasons should be made public when changes are made and particularly when restrictions are made on available benefits. The Committee commendably had started to do this even before the recent elections in regard to tricyclic anti-depressants. Following this commendable initiative the Committee has indicated the reasons for removing from the schedule benefits for pensioners which incorporated sedatives with pain killers. I am not in a position to state whether the report which suggested that hundreds of pensioners have died as a result of using these combinations is correct. I would think that any such assertion could only be a guess. Certainly such tablets do figure in suicidal attempts as do other sedative and sleeping tablets which are the commonest means of deliberate attempts at suicide. There is a very high incidence of such attempts by elderly people, including pensioners. I do not know whether it would be accurate to say that some hundreds of people have died as tha result of taking these tablets. But let us suppose that there were 300 deaths from this cause. If this were so there would still be only about one-hundredth of J per cent of pensioners in Australia affected. This is not a very high incidence considering the incidence of successful suicides and particularly suicides from drugs.

In perspective I do not know whether we can look on this as a very major or startling public health problem. But it is a problem. The biggest problem is not the number of successful suicides but the number of people whose lives are blighted by becoming hooked on sedative drugs which are not necessary for the prevention of pain. Psychiatrists and other experts in the fields of public health and epidemiology are showing increasing concern over the use of sedative drugs. The vaunted benefits of those drugs when they were first introduced to the prescribing doctor have been tempered over the years to a point where most doctors are becoming doubtful as to whether they really ought to be used at all. If they should be used then probably they should be prescribed only for very limited periods in crisis situations such as pre-operative conditions. This opinion is being circulated to doctors with requests that they take steps to wean people off these drugs before they are banished from the list. They have not been removed from the list as yet. I understand that this is planned as from 1st August.

page 1044

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION DOCUMENT: ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister the following question: In view of the McCarthy-like allegations made by him in this place and by the Attorney-General in another place firstly against migrants to Australia and now against individual public servants and his instigation of inquiries into, to use his words the ‘possible malevolence and incompetence’ of the latter, will the Prime Minister, if he cannot now open the inquiry to public scrutiny, undertake to table in this House the full result of his inquiry? Will he provide for those accused public servants an adequate opportunity to answer publicly any charges made against them?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I can assure honourable members that any public servant or public employee whose employment is questioned or jeopardised as a result of the inquiries I ordered on 16th March, will have as great facilities and protection as any public servant or public employee has under the law.

page 1045

QUESTION

EDUCATION: SPECIAL CLASSES FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Mr ASHLEY-BROWN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education regarding an affliction called dyslexia. In the metropolitan area of Sydney, only 3 schools run special classes for the elimination of this complaint. Each class has approximately 30 children and the waiting list for entry is 2 years. Will the Minister for Education advise me what action is being taken, or can be taken, to increase the training of these children within the education system?

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

– During the period of the late Government our predecessors conducted a Senate inquiry into the education of handicapped children, and my predecessor also appointed the Cowen Committee to inquire into the training of teachers. This Committee has just produced a report which has not yet been published. Chapter 6 of this report deals with the training of teachers for children with disabilities. All of this material will be available to the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission which will make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government in this field of accelerating the development of facilities for the education of the handicapped, as it will in all other fields. I hope that the Committee’s recommendations will include the funding of the States for the education of the handicapped in grants under section 96 of the Constitution, and I hope that the offer of the Commonwealth foi- these and other grants will not be met with the strange reception that our intention to make very substantial grants under section 96 as an offer to the Premiers received last week.

page 1045

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION DOCUMENT: ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen a report submitted to me by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department dated on or about 12th September 1972 - that is, shortly before the dissolution of the House - that the Commonwealth Police Force had no knowledge of any terrorist group operating in Australia, nor had it been able to obtain any information concerning such a group? As this report is identical with other information submitted to me in writing and known by other departments to be correct, is it the proper interpretation of the words alleged to be used by the foreign affairs officer in the alleged Australian Security Intelligence Organisation minute that the reply to the Whitlam Government should be consistent with the aide-memoire to the Yugoslav Embassy? This being so, does not the repetition of the word ‘conspiracy’ create the impression of a smear against those civil servants involved and that, accordingly, an apology should immediately be conveyed to the officers who submitted the report to the Prime Minister?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did not initiate the use of the word ‘conspiracy’.

Mr Anthony:

– But you used it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– If the report is accurate, then what else could there have been other than a conspiracy, as the Leader of the Opposition himself discerned quite quickly? Bluntly, if the report is correct, then on the face of it there was a conspiracy.

Mr Staley:

– Why?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have expressly-

Mr Staley:

– Why?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Because it is asserted-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister can answer only one question at a time.

Mr McMahon:

– I want him to answer mine.

Mr WHITLAM:

– If the right honourable gentleman will let me, I will quote again what the report said. This is the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation report made on 5th March about a meeting held on 2nd March:

The Department of Foreign Affairs made two points on the proposed statement.

That is the statement by the Attorney-General.

Mr McMahon:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. 1 have asked a question. Admittedly, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question earlier and received an answer.

Mr Snedden:

– I did not receive an answer.

Mr McMahon:

– An attempted answer. I ask that the Prime Minister answer my question and not refer to other questions asked earlier today.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I should like to inform the House, as I have done on numerous occasions since becoming Speaker, that I intend to follow the practice of my 2 predecessors and allow Ministers to answer questions as they see fit.

Mr WHITLAM:

– As I was saying when 1 was so querulously interrupted, the report stated:

The Department of Foreign Affairs made two points on the proposed statement. The first was that the statement should not be at variance with the interim reply given to Yugoslavia in response to the aide-memoire presented to Australia following the Bosnian incident’, in 1972.

I will skip the next point. The report continued:

The Attorney-General’s Department accepted the first point.

I quoted that in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition then asked me a further question and, by way of interjection, said: ‘What about the conspiracy between Attorney-General’s and Foreign Affairs?’ The word ‘conspiracy’ was used by the Leader of the Opposition.

I have expressly, again and again - at question time yesterday, at question time today and at a Press conference yesterday - declined to confirm the accuracy of the report or to speculate about its accuracy. If it is accurate then, as the Leader of the Opposition said, there may well be a conspiracy. On the face of it there would be a conspiracy. On the other hand, if the report is inaccurate we all have much to fear from inaccurate reports by ASIO. All applicants for naturalization and pro spective public servants, have much to fear from reports by ASIO if they are inaccurate. Inquiries are being made into the whole of this matter. In answer to the specific question asked by the right honourable member for Lowe, I have not the document to which he referred.

Mr McMahon:

– Have you seen it?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not remember seeing it but I will oblige the right honourable gentleman by asking for it. I have got here a document which he sent to a former AttorneyGeneral. I completely agree with the sentiments of it. It reads as follows:

I believe that the situation is now so serious that the Government must take whatever further action is within its power to put an end to these incidents. It may be that some additional Commonwealth legislation is required - to increase penalties, for example - and 1 suggest that Departments should continue to look at this matter to see what recommendations can be placed before Cabinet in the very near future. But as a matter of immediacy I think we should use all the agencies at our disposal, including the Commonwealth and State Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to attempt to identify the offenders among the extremist groups and to bring them to justice.

Mr Sherry:

– Who said that?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The right honourable member for Lowe, lt was on 1 6th December 1969 when he was Foreign Minister, before he displaced the then Prime Minister. The right honourable gentleman proceeded as follows:

I find it hard to believe that lt is not possible to penetrate these groups by one means or another. It ls most important that, when offenders are brought before a court, the full rigour of the law should be applied so that there can be no doubt as to tha determination of the Australian authorities to put an end to this form of violence in the community. I think it is essential that we should act quickly and that we should act so that there will be no possible misunderstanding by anyone of our concern and our intentions.

He pointed out that in 1964 Prime Minister Menzies had stated that his Government would not tolerate any activities which constitute a breach of the law. The right honourable gentleman proceeded:

The situation is a great deal more serious now; and it may be desirable that a further statement be made in stronger terms than that of S years ago.

This letter is dated 16th December 1969. So slowly did the mills of justice grind then that now we have to tackle the position that deteriorated under the right honourable gentleman.

page 1047

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes. 1 would like to clarify a situation arising out of yesterday’s discussion immediately after question time. It is reported at page 964 of Hansard that I said that a statement made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) was untrue. On reading Hansard, it becomes obvious that there is an error and a misunderstanding. The honourable member is reported on page 964 as having said:

He rang me back an hour or two later and said that he was sorry that leave could not be granted to me to present the report and to make the statement on that day.

After the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) had spoken I said that the. statement that the honourable member for Gippsland made was a deliberate untruth. The honourable member for Gippsland later corrected himself in his remarks reported on page 965. He said:

Certainly it is true that the honourable member telephoned me. The conversation up to that point as narrated by the Minister for Transport was quite correct

In other words it is obvious that the honourable member for Gippsland made a mistake in saying that it was an hour or two later when in fact it was only a couple of minutes - less than 10 minutes. It is also obvious that there is a disagreement as to what took place. The honourable member says that I was not prepared to give him leave to table the Tariff Board report. It is true that I would not give him leave to table the Tariff Board report after question time, but I did say to him that he could get leave later that day to table the Tariff Board report. That is the difference as far as I am concerned. I withdraw the remark that the statement he made was a deliberate untruth, because to start with the honourable member corrected his statement that it was one or two hours later and acknowledged that it was only minutes. On the other matter, it is true that I would not have given him leave immediately after question time but that leave would have been given later that day.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr NIXON:

– Yes. I appreciate what the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has said and thank him for making a clarification of the statement he made yesterday. One point of difference still remains. Last year the Minister for Transport, shadow minister as he then was, said to me that I could during the course of the debate on a matter of public importance use a Tariff Board report that I wished to table. I requested leave to make a separate statement on the Tariff Board report. He said: ‘No. You can use the Tariff Board report during the course of the debate.’ I think that if the Minister reads his speech on that matter of public importance he will see that he referred to that fact.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

Mr Speaker, 1 wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented in the suggestion by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that the Leader of the Opposition can use words which he, the Prime Minister, must continue to use. The suggestion that he did not want to use the word ‘conspiracy’ and that I had forced him to use it comes as an extraordinary statement when we have seen the arrogance of the man during question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a personal reflection. I ask the right honourable gentleman not to use those words.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The question I put was:

Is it the clear conclusion from the answer that the Prime Minister has given that the Foreign Affairs Department and the Attorney-General’s Department conspired to lead the Prime Minister and the Government to a lie. to which he has referred?

That was my question. It was put to the Prime Minister. I asked whether it was a clear conclusion that there was a conspiracy. The honourable gentleman, as with almost every other question, one exception being a question about Michelangelo’s David asked by the honourable member for Casey today, has sought to avoid answering questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question asked by the honourable member for Casey has nothing to do with the right honourable gentleman’s personal explanation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– As the Prime Minister was about to sit down, having failed to answer the question, I said to him:

What about the conspiracy between AttorneyGeneral’s and Foreign Affairs?

It was open to the honourable gentleman at that time to say that there was no conspiracy or that he was not satisfied that there was a conspiracy, or to use any other words that he wished, instead of which he used these words:

It would certainly, on the face of it, indicate that there was a conspiracy between public servants to withhold the truth from the Parliament.

There is no use his trying to avoid that today.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I rise to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. I believe 1 can correct the misrepresentation more succinctly and with better manners than the Leader of the Opposition. The right honourable gentleman asked me, in a typically tortuous question, yesterday:

Is it the clear conclusion from the answer that the Prime Minister has given that the Foreign Affairs Department and the Attorney-General’s Department conspired to lead the Prime Minister and the Government to a lie, to which he has referred?

To that, in reply I stated:

I do not wish to state whether I accept the accuracy of the version given by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation representative concerning the points put by the representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs. These are matters into which I am inquiring. 1 do not want to express a view which will predetermine the facts in this matter.

The right honourable gentleman then interjected:

What about the conspiracy between AttorneyGenerals and Foreign Affairs?

I said:

The right honourable gentleman asks a question about conspiracy. It would certainly, on the face of it, indicate that there was a conspiracy between public servants to withhold the truth from the Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I have been most scrupulous not to underwrite the accuracy of the report. (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Some honourable member has interjected and said: ‘Tell the truth’. I should like to find out who made that interjection because he would be reprimanded.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have been most scrupulous not to assert the accuracy of the report which I quoted. I took the earliest possible action upon it, and that is in train. I did not initiate the use of the words ‘conspire’ or ‘conspiracy’.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SCHOLES:

– I do. In the course of a statement to the Victorian Parliament - a statement which is a transcription of inaccuracies - the Victorian Minister for Housing referred to a question 1 had asked in this House. I quote directly from his statement as follows:

In fact, 1 understand a question was asked in the House of Representatives on Tuesday of Mr Johnson by the Socialist member for Geelong, Mr Scholes, as to whether my statement was correct that Commonwealth policy would cut across the program of providing homes for decentralised industries.

Mr Speaker, apart from my name I can see no other fact which is accurate in the whole of that sentence. Firstly, my question was asked on the Wednesday. Secondly, as the word ‘Socialist’ is used with a capital letter it implies that I am a member of a political party other than the Australian Labor Party, and this is not true. Thirdly, I do not represent the electorate of Geelong; I represent the electorate of Corio. Fourthly, in order to clarify the misrepresentation, I repeat that the Victorian Minister claimed that I asked a question as to whether his, Mr Dickie’s, statement was correct that the Commonwealth policy would cut across a program of providing houses for decentralised industry. The questionI had asked was not relevant to that subject matter, which concerns an entirely different housing scheme. The question I asked was:

Is the Minister for Housing aware of statements made by the Victorian Minister for Housing in which he claims that under the proposed new CommonwealthState housing agreement no houses will be allowed to be built in country areas? Is this statement true? If it is not true, as I am sure it is not, is there any, basis upon which such a statement could be made?

The House will be quite clear and can have no doubt that the Minister for Housing in the

Victorian Parliament was deliberately misrepresenting me and the question 1 asked in order to provide himself with Aunt Sallies.

page 1049

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs · Werriwa · ALP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Wriedt, leaves Australia today to attend a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Committee for Agriculture in Paris and to have discussions on matters relating to primary industry in London and Washington. He is expected to return to Australia on 20th April. During his absence the Minister for Works, Senator Cavanagh, will be the Acting Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1049

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present annual reports for 1971-72 of the following Department of Supply research and development establishments:

Aeronautical Research Laboratories

Central Studies Establishment

Defence Standards Laboratories

Weapons Research Establishment.

page 1049

DUPLICATOR STENCILS

Tariff Board Report

Dr J. F. CAIRNS (Lalor- Minister for

Overseas Trade and Minister for Secondary Industry) - For the information of honourable members I present the Tariff Board report on duplicator stencils (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 23rd February 1973.

page 1049

WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929-1966 I present the forty-fourth annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1049

INTERNATIONAL COCOA AGREEMENT

Ministerial Statement

DrJ. F. CAIRNS (Lalor- Minister for Overseas Trade and Minister for Secondary Industry) - by leave - For the information of honourable members, I present the text of the International Cocoa Agreement 1972. The Agreement was negotiated at a Conference held in Geneva last year under the auspices of UNCTAD- the United Nations Confer ence on Trade and Development. Australia signed the Agreement on 12th January 1973 and the Government proposes to ratify it before the due date, 30th April 1973. This is the first international agreement on cocoa. It follows many years of difficult and protracted negotiations. The fact that agreement has now been reached is a tribute to UNCTAD and particularly its Secretary-General, Mr Perez Guerrero.

Cocoa is, of course, a very important commodity to a number of developing countries, particularly African countries and also to Papua New Guinea. The economic and political stability of many of these countries depends to a large extent on stable and predictable foreign exchange earnings from the sale of cocoa. World trade in cocoa has been marked by excessive price fluctuations, ranging over thelast 20 years from a high of some US58c a pound to a low of about USl7c a pound. It is in the interests of producers of cocoa and every other commodity of significance that there should be a rational, sensible means of controlling the way in which it is marketed. There is nothing to be said for a free-for-all in international trade; nothing to be said for violent fluctuations which can entail considerable human cost in welfare terms and cut right across countries’ efforts to achieve greater certainty and predictability in their trade as a basis for sound production and marketing programs.

The primary objective of the Agreement is to secure adequate supplies of cocoa and to maintain stable prices, prices which will be remunerative to producers but which protect consumers against exploitation. The price range within which the Agreement aims to stabilise the market price of cocoa is US23c and US32c a pound. Provisions exist for the price range to be adjusted periodically by agreement between the exporters and importers. The mechanism by which the Agreement’s objective is to be achieved will be by way of regulating supplies on to the market by export quotas. In the course of the negotiations it was agreed that the quantity of cocoa coming on to the market must be strictly limited if better and more stable prices were to prevail. Export quotas will be adjusted in accordance with fluctuations within the agreed price range. In addition, there is provision for a buffer stock mechanism, financed by a levy of USlc a pound on cocoa first entering international trade. The basic function of the buffer stock, which might consist of up to 250.000 tonnes of cocoa, is to support the price range and to moderate short term price fluctuations due to temporary changes in market conditions.

Governments participate in the Agreement either as exporting or importing members. The Agreement has been signed by 41 countries and the European Economic Community. The major cocoa exporting countries are Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Brazil and Cameroon. These 5 countries have all signed the Agreement and alone account for about 90 per cent of total world production of cocoa for export. Importing countries which have signed the Agreement, including the member states of the enlarged EEC, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Japan and Canada, account for almost 70 per cent of world imports of cocoa. Regrettably, the United States had yet to accept the Agreement. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of cocoa and it would be most desirable for it to be a member. I earnestly hope therefore that it will shortly join or at least lend its co-operation to the effective operation of the Agreement.

Papua New Guinea’s position as a producer and exporter of significant tonnages of cocoa has, of course, been a paramount consideration in Australia’s participation in the negotiation of this Agreement. Cocoa accounts for about 20 per cent of Papua New Guinea’s exports and it is its third most important export commodity. Papua New Guinea exported some 30,000 tonnes of raw cocoa in the 1971-72 cocoa year, which represented about 2 per cent of world exports. For its part, Australia imported some 15,000 tonnes of raw cocoa in 1971-72 and 8,000 tonnes of cocoa products. The future of the cocoa industry is of major importance to Papua New Guinea and, indeed, on the basis of the country’s overall development program, it could well become an increasingly important agricultural export commodity within the short space of a few years. Hence Papua New Guinea has a very real interest in obtaining stable and remunerative prices for its cocoa while at the same time having the opportunity to plan ahead its production program on a sound and predictable basis.

In this connection, it was possible to negotiate, export control provisions which in effect mean that Papua New Guinea’s aspirations should be adequately accommodated within the Agreement. It was determined that some 75 per cent of Papua New Guinea’s exports is of a type of cocoa which is exempted from export controls, while the remaining 25 per cent will not be subject to controls at present because of the small quantity involved. Following discussions with the Papua New Guinea Government and the Minister for External Territories, it has been agreed that, pending independence, Papua New Guinea will join with Australia in joint exporter membership of the Agreement. Following independence, the Papua New Guinea Government will need to consider the, question of separate membership in the Agreement. The Papua New Guinea cocoa industry was represented and consulted at all stages of the negotiations and I would like to take this opportunity to thank publicly Mr Poe. the Minister for Trade and Industry, who led the Papua New Guinea representatives at the final Geneva conference. The Australian Government welcomes this new agreement on cocoa. We are satisfied that it provides an acceptable basis for Australia’s and Papua New Guinea’s participation and it represents a further important step towards international cooperation in stabilising world commodity markets. I present the following paper:

International Cocoa Agreement - Ministerial Statement, 4 April 1973.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– The Opposition welcomes this Agreement and supports the Government’s action in signing it and its proposal to ratify it. Consistent with the policies followed by the previous Government, the present Government has entered into this Agreement. I would be remiss if I did not mention in passing the outstanding work done by the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), the Leader of the Australian Country Party, in negotiating some international commodity agreements, particularly the magnificent work he did on the international sugar agreement and, to some extent, the renegotiation of the international wheat agreement. The Opposition strongly supports international commodity agreements provided they come within the ambit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) did not mention in his speech that this agreement was under the auspices of GAIT. He rightly said that it was under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development but, if my memory serves me correctly, it was in the early stages sponsored by GATT and later carried on by UNCTAD. As the Minister said, this particular commodity has gone through the agony of at least 7 years of negotiation before the Agreement was signed. Going through Press cuttings in the Parliamentary Library one sees the headline in the Financial Times’ in 1967: ‘Still no decision on cocoa pact, and a couple of months later: ‘All set for international cocoa agreement. Another month later in The Economist’ under the headline ‘Success at Geneva’, the following appears:

The governments of the world’s 14 leading cocoa producers and consumers have finally hammered out an agreement at Geneva, with only some minor details still to be settled.

That was stated in ‘The Economist’ in October 1967. Yet in 1973, 6 years after that, the Minister comes into the House and finally announces success. One of the strange aspects of this Agreement is that it has been signed by 41 countries at a time when the international cocoa industry is in good shape. I think the Minister would agree with me that the history of international commodity agreements shows that they are usually negotiated and signed by countries when the industry is in diabolical trouble. It so happens that it has been estimated that this year there will be a record world production of cocoa of 1.55 million metric tons. It is expected that consumption this year will exceed the supply, which will result in 2 things - a rundown of stocks and pressure for higher prices.

The significance of this Agreement to Australia is twofold. Firstly, we have signed it as an importing country. I do not think that very much cocoa is grown in Australia per se and we have signed the Agreement as an importing country. We have also signed the Agreement, as the Minister says, on behalf of or jointly with the Territory of Papua New Guinea, which is an exporting country. The Minister has graciously agreed to allow my friend and colleague the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who is the Opposition’s spokesman on the External Territories portfolio, to say a few words about the implications of this Agreement as far as Papua New Guinea is concerned. I will just mention the point as I have no doubt that he will develop it that Papua New; Guinea is not one of the leading exporters of cocoa - in fact it exports only 2 per cent of total world exports - but cocoa represents 20 per cent of the total exports of Papua New Guinea. 1 wish to make 2 points briefly. Australia has a fine record in honouring international commodity agreements. It can be said that most countries have generally honoured international commodity agreements. If one wanted to be impeccably fair one would have to say that the only black mark on Australia’s history in respect of international commodity agreements - it would probably be a brown mark rather than a black mark - would be concerning wheat, but that was something that occurred when Australia was simply doing what all other countries were doing. The disappointing thing about this Agreement, as the Minister pointed out, is that although 41 nations have signed it the world’s greatest importer - the United States of America - has not. That, as the Minister rightly said, is a matter for some regret. He gave no reasons as to why the United States had not signed it. It may be that he does not know. I do not know, but I am given to understand from information supplied to me that the United States, together with some other countries, has expressed concern that there has been a breakdown recently in the honouring of the International Coffee Agreement. There were allegations that some of the exporters of coffee had not honoured the Coffee Agreement because they had raised prices and so on. They have retorted that they have raised prices because of the devaluation of the American dollar. Other countries have said that that is not according to the rules of the game. When one looks at the producers and exporters of cocoa one sees that many of them are also the main exporters of coffee. Perhaps the United States of America is worrying about the so-called breaking of the International Coffee Agreement because many of the signatories to it are signatories to this Agreement. Whatever the reason might be, I join with the Minister in expressing the hope that the United States will soon see fit to sign and ratify this Agreement because the United States is in fact the largest consumer of coffee.

In conclusion I want to say that the most pleasing feature of this Agreement is that it shows that fortuitously the exporters of cocoa are generally underdeveloped or developing nations. We on this side of the House would strenuously support any move that this Parliament takes to assist in the development of those nations and in the raising of their standards of living and, indeed, quality of life.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– I thank the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) for extending to me the opportunity of speaking in this debate. As indicated by my colleague, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who is the Opposition’s spokesman on international trade, the Opposition welcomes the International Cocoa Agreement. I join with the Minister in expressing appreciation to Mr John Poe, the Minister for Trade and Industry in Papua New Guinea, and those in Papua New Guinea who are concerned with cocoa production and who assisted in the work involved in the preparation of this Agreement. I agree also with the honourable member for Hotham and the Minister that it is a matter for regret that the United States has not yet accepted the Agreement. The United States is the largest consumer of cocoa. It is therefore of the utmost importance that it should lend its support to the Agreement.

This Agreement, as has been said, represents the culmination of many years of difficult negotiations. Australia’s membership will extend to Papua New Guinea. She will join with us and we will ratify the Agreement as an exporting member with Papua New Guinea. I think the honourable member for Hotham mentioned that. The Papua New Guinea cocoa industry is not large by world standards but, as indicated by the Minister, it has a most significant effect on the Papua New Guinea economy. In 1971-72 her exports were worth $llm in Australian currency. Cocoa is Papua New Guinea’s third most important agricultural export. Her cocoa has achieved wide acceptance as a fine or flavour cocoa. The main areas of production in Papua New Guinea are in New Britain, including the Gazelle, Bougainville, New Ireland, Madang and the northern district. The extent of the indigenous production is approximately one-third of the total production. As I recall, the indigenous area under cocoa is approximately 47,000 acres and the nonindigenous area is 132,000 acres. I understand also that contrary to other trends throughout the world, the total 1973 output will be down due to the extensive drought in Papua New Guinea during 1972.

The Minister has stressed the importance of the cocoa industry to Papua New Guinea. I fully endorse his statement. Papua New Guinea must to a large extent live by her export income. Even if only one-third of it is produced at this stage by local Papua New Guineans that is most important. I am sure the Papua New Guinea Government looks for growth in this sector, as I certainly would. Such an increase in indigenous production can, of course, occur only if the people can witness more stable prices. The previous wide fluctuations did not assist in engendering confidence in this regard. Provided this Agreement stabilises prices undoubtedly it will contribute to increased indigenous production. I conclude with a quotation of the Deputy Governor of the Ceylon Central Bank and Chairman of the Cocoa Conference 1972, who said:

We have the text of an international agreement but the existence of a text by itself is not sufficient. It must be put into operation and. how effective it will be can only, be seen in time.

I fervently trust that the Agreement will in fact be effective and reiterate that the Opposition supports, the Minister’s statement on the Agreement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1052

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: ‘

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1973.

Commonwealth Banks Bril 1973.

page 1052

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to present the report of the Australian Branch Delegation to the eighteenth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference held at Blantyre, Malawi, during October 1972 and to make a brief statement in connection with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr TURNER:

– I thank the House and present the report. These Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences, of which the last was the eighteenth, consist of delegates from 90-odd branches of the Association with a total membership of something like 8,000 parliamentarians who come from all parts of the Commonwealth as widely dispersed as Europe and the Mediterranean, Canada, the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and Oceania, including of course Australia and New Zealand. It should not be forgotten that the Australian States also are included. The Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation consisted of myself as leader, the Honourable F. M. Daly, M.P., now the Minister for Services and Property, as deputy leader, Senator Durack, Senator Poke, Mr B. W. Graham, M.P., and Mr A. W. James, M.P. We had the invaluable assistance of Mr John Ferguson as secretary.

At the outset I should like to pay a tribute to the host branch, Malawi, which offered us generous hospitality and afforded us every opportunity to see the country and talk with the people and, in conjunction with the SecretaryGeneral, Mr Robin Vanderfelt, and his staff, organised the conference with great efficiency. The heads of discussion at the conference were: The Commonwealth and World Security; Parliament’s Role in the Modern World; Social Problems of Today and Economic Problems. Australia’s delegates participated in the debates in each of these fields. Apart from the formal debates, members had very many opportunities for informal discussion with individual delegates. In regard to international affairs and the problems of security, members who attended the conference came to understand the anxiety of the Asian members to establish zones of peace in the Indian Ocean and South Bast Asia while at the same time members appreciated that these zones must be guaranteed and that until guarantees are forthcoming certain members - particularly the great trading nations - must be prepared to protect interests which are vital to their economies and their security.

Similarly, the various circumstances and factors which occasion differing stances by different nations on issues in Africa were explained in debate, lt was evident that Britain’s entry in the European Common Market, which was a burning issue and a matter of recrimination a few years ago, is now a matter of tolerant understanding on the one hand and willingness to seek some mutually advantageous accommodation on the other. Delegates found a good deal of common ground in their approach to social problems. Finally, we gained a great deal from exploring with our colleagues from all over the Commonwealth the different ways and means of improving the efficiency of our parlia mentary institutions and the different paths of our common goal - democratic government in the best interests of our peoples. In broadening and deepening understanding in all these matters, we believe that this conference and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association have served and are, serving a useful function in a world in which mutual understanding is not always the most notable characteristic of all nations.

Mr Daly:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement in regard to the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– As the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) said, I was one of the delegation that attended the conference at Malawi. I endorse the sentiments that he has expressed today. In doing so, I congratulate him on the leadership he gave to the delegation and the excellence of his presentation of the cases put on a number of issues by the Australian delegation. I should also like to incorporate in my remarks my thanks, as deputy leader of the delegation, to our secretary and all the officials and other people associated with the conduct of the conference. A special tribute is due to the people of Malawi for what was a wonderfully friendly welcome. Malawi is a very poor country in many ways but the people’s hospitality to the limits of their capacity was unlimited, if I may say so. It was a charming experience to be amongst them. Great credit is due to those who made the conference so successful in that way.

I believe that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences serve a great purpose for discussion, for knowing people and for the mixture of ideas. The general community of interest that is apparent at meetings is exemplified in gatherings of this kind. Whilst in many ways the conference did not come up to what I would have desired, I would say that it is an Association with which we should be associated. We should endeavour to enable it, by monetary consideration and other things, to carry out the functions which it performs at present. As is evidenced in the report which will be published, certain changes are needed in respect of the composition of various executives and the regional areas and in the Association’s methods of operation. I could not help but reach the conclusion that in many ways, instead of being what might be called a powerful relation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Australia was placed in the category of being a somewhat poor relation despite our influence in this part of the world and particularly the contribution we have made as an original member of the Association. Arising out of this feeling, we have suggested to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in our report certain rather drastic changes which we believe are necessary not only for the more efficient functioning of the body but also in order that Australia might not only be able to play its rightful part at these conferences but also receive proper recognition for the contribution we make to the holding of these conferences and the effort members of this Parliament and the government, irrespective of their political colour, put into the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

I thought I knew a bit about organising, but I somewhat humbly admit that, as my colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) will tell you, Sir, I was taught a few lessons at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference on how to win ballots. I congratulate those who were successful in getting their man elected. I mention, somewhat humorously but nonetheless seriously, that the organising ability of the honourable member for Bradfield was so roused and apparent that I think he almost could have applied for membership of the Australian Labor Party. I could not help but think that certain meetings were used for organising purposes. Whilst they might have been good for those concerned, certain people used them very fruitfully for organising purposes. Australia is supposed to have the opportunity to represent a region. If we fake our turn in the ranks it will be 1991 before we hit the front. If the ticket continues to be run in this way, this Parliament will not be represented. Far from being just led along, we should be the leaders because we can do so much for the Association in this part of the world.

I hope that the powers that be of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in London will heed the warnings that were given publicly by the leader of the Australian delegation and others on finance and organisation. I hope that all members of this Parliament will study our report and see that, as strongly as possible, we give support to what is being put forward as to changes that are very necessary if we are to be of any influence at all in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I conclude these few brief remarks by endorsing the sentiments of the honourable member for Bradfield and thanking my colleagues in the delegation. The experience of attending the conference was all the more happy because on our return the Labor Party was elected to its rightful place in this chamber. I hope that support will be given to our recommendations, which are designed to improve generally the status of this Parliament in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the efficiency of the Association.

page 1054

CLOSURE OF AUSTRALIAN SHIPYARDS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to prevent the closure of major Australian shipyards.

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

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– History will show that the present Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), by his failure to act, has forced the closure of 2 major shipyards in Australia. The extraordinary situation is that in the so-called first 100 days of feverish activity by this Government, in which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) claims that his Ministers were very busy, no positive action was taken by this Minister for Transport to prevent the announced closure of the Evans Deakin shipyard in Queensland or the Adelaide Ship Construction’s shipyard. Knowing the Department of Transport as I do I have no doubt that it could itself find an answer to this problem if this do-nothing Minister would only listen. Why does he not take advice from his Department? It is of no use for the Minister to blame the previous Government. It is not the previous Government which is closing down the yards; it is the present Labor Government.

There has been plenty of time for the Minister to take action, and indeed throughout the life of the present Government the

Minister has been claiming through the media a new deal for shipping. Who can forget the headlines following his speech in Whyalla on 19th February in which he said:

In respect of the coastal trade, we will be reserving thai entirely for Australian built, Australian owned, and Australian manned vessels. We expect them to be operated efficiently and economically for the benefit of ail Australians.

This was received by the media with wide acclaim. An article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ was headed: ‘Federal subsidy policy shot in arm for BHP shipbuilding.’ The article reads:

Mr Jones indicated that the Federal Government would subsidise, shipbuilding at the current 45 per cent rate without any scaling down over a five-year period as envisaged by the previous Government, and that, over the long-term, subsidy would continue to be at an ‘adequate’ level.

The implication in that reported statement is that the Labor Government is to reverse the findings of the Tariff Board and the decisions of the previous Government. The fact is that the recommendations of the Board were modified by the previous Government in order to assist the Australian shipbuilding industry. For example, the subsidy period was extended to 1978 at the 45 per cent rate with a rate of 35 per cent to operate after that time until the further Tariff Board hearing was completed. After my meeting with the shipbuilders the Government agreed that the previous policy on the use of imported ships would be continued and not to adopt the recommendation by the Tariff Board for the free import of ships.

In his speech made at Whyalla the Minister for Transport talked about the previous Government ‘doing away with recognised yards’, that is, all yards. We followed the Tariff Board recommendation that all yards should be eligible for a subsidy. Last year the then shadow Minister for Shipping and Transport was critical of the fact that fishing boats were not eligible for a subsidy under the then Government’s plan. What is this Minister doing about these matters now? Is he going to take the subsidy away from the smaller yards? Is he going to recognise fishing boats as being eligible for a subsidy? He criticised the previous Government for taking 10 months to handle a Tariff Board report. He has already had 4 months in which to take action but all he has done has been to allow 2 major yards to announce closing down plans. Early in February when Adelaide Ship Construction announced the closure of the Birkenhead shipyard the Minister was reported as follows:

I am aware of the seriousness of the Birkenhead men’s situation and I am continuing to explore every possible avenue to preserve their employment’, said Mr Jones.

He has done nothing. All he has done has been to waste time. Since then Evans Deakin Industries Ltd has announced a close-down. Is the Minister going to sit idly by until Walkers of Maryborough and others announce closedowns?

There is no need for a further study of this issue. All the Minister has to do is to back up his previous statements on the Australian Labor Party’s shipbuilding policy. They are: Firstly, that the fishing industry should not be excluded from the subsidy; secondly, the subsidy should apply to ships in overseas trade; thirdly, that the Labor Government would make cheap money available; fourthly, Labor would allow depreciation over any term; and fifthly, the subsidy should not start at 25 per cent. The Minister is reported in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 21st September as having said that they were the answers to the problems and that this was Labor policy. If they are the answers then why not implement them?

What about the Minister’s claim that the Australian coast would be reserved for Australian built ships? No sooner did he say that on 19th February than he started to retract. Reaction was reported in the ‘Australian’ of 1st March and this caused the Minister either to change his mind or to have second thoughts. The article in the ‘Australian* reads:

The speech sent a shock wave through the foreign shipping industry and produced reports in the British Press that Australia intended to practise flag discrimination.

Mr Jones had said it was his intention that coastal services should be restricted to Australian ships, crews and owners.

As to the announced policy that 40 per cent of the new mineral exports will be carried in Australian ships, the Minister knows full well that the revaluation by his Government has jeopardised any prospect of new mineral developments. So such a policy is a hollow sham. When does he propose to implement the stated policy that 40 per cent of all Australian trade will be carried in Australian ships with Australian seamen? The Minister’s statement made on 19th February at Whyalla about the 40 per cent trade went off like a lead balloon.

I quote a statement by a representative of the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping which appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 1st March. It reads:

If this is true, it would be an extreme example of cargo discrimination which is completely contrary to the liberal shipping policy which we and the shipowners of Europe and Japan have been advocating.’

We have the extraordinary position that nothing has yet eventuated in respect of trade being carried in Australian ships. Indeed, as I understand it, the proposal was rejected by the Conference lines to Japan at their meeting in Surfers Paradise recently. I suppose the Minister will do nothing about that.

As to his. announced policy that the Australian coast will be reserved for Australian ships, the Minister has been doing something about that, but it is not to his credit, nor is it in line with his stated policy. Quite the contrary. He has been allowing the importation of foreign built ships in an extraordinary quantity and in an extraordinary fashion. On 1st March the Minister announced that the Government’s own shipping line, the Australian National Line, would charter a 117,000 ton bulk carrier as a first step in expanding coastal operations. How such a proposal fits in with the stated policy to preserve coastal trade for Australian built ships defies all reason. In a statement on bulk carriers for coastal trade the Minister said:

I am most gratified at the ANL’s decision . . .

How he can be gratified in the knowledge that the Government’s own shipping line is’ to import a foreign built ship for use on the Australian coast when quite obviously other tonnage will be displaced beats me. Nor has the Minister yet explained how this 117,000-ton ship is to be replaced by an Australian built ship. He knows as well as I do that no Australian shipyard has the capacity to build ships in excess of 85,000 tons. Clearly he is being deceitful. Before allowing the import of a foreign built ship he should state what replacement arrangements are being made. How Australia’s trade unions associated with shipping can tolerate such deceit is beyond me.

But there is worse to come. In the Australian’ of 2nd April there appeared a story that the Federal Minister for Transport had permitted 3 other ships of a similar nature to be imported. Again it is obvious that such ships will replace Australian tonnage which is already operating on the coast. But worse still, there is no clear indication by the Minister just how or when Australian built ships can provide replacements. No wonder Evans Deakin is closing down. Evans Deakin can clearly see that there is no place for Australian shipyards while such a policy is operating. But there is still more to come and it is worse. There has been an Australian built ship, the Straitsman’, operating from Melbourne to King Island under the control of Captain Houfe. This ship was built at a cost of $1.2m by North Queensland Engineering to a special design to suit the King Island trade. Unfortunately Captain Houfe ran into some difficulties with trade unions and others and the ship has been tied up. On 10th October 1972 the following telegram was sent by Mr Ron Davies, M.H.R., to Captain Houfe. It reads:

Federal Parliamentary Labor Party today approved the following policy decision Stop A Federal Labor Government will require the Australian National Line to assume responsibility for the King Island shipping service and for this purpose to negotiate with the owners of the vessel Straitsman which was specifically designed for this service. RON DAVIES, M.H.R.

That is a clear statement of policy expressed by the Labor Party. But to the contrary the Federal Minister for Transport, who so zealously claims that he wants to protect the Australian coast for Australian built ships, has permitted a State Labor government to purchase or charter overseas a vessel for the King Island trade and indeed will lend $lm to Tasmania to assist with the - purchase. Captain Houfe issued a statement on hearing of this policy turnabout by the Labor Government. I seek leave to have that statement incorporated in Hansard.

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

Frankston, 20 March 1973

The Statement as made by the Minister for Transport, Mr C. Jones, that the Federal Government would assist the Tasmanian Government finance the purchase of a vessel from overseas and assist the trade with a freight subsidy as well as share any losses is incredible in the light of the present Government’s policy pledge to my Company made on 10 October 1972. M.V. ‘Straitsman’ was built in Australia costing $1.2m, and on today’s values would cost in excess of $2m to build. Contrary to the Tariff Board recommendation of 25 June 1971, the vessel was not granted the shipbuilding subsidy and as well the freight subsidy was withdrawn.

I cannot understand how any Australian Government can destroy the entire concept of what has taken me 20 years with Government approval and support to achieve and the introduction of ‘Straitsman’ to the Melbourne-King Island-Stanley service, together with all the infra-structure which was planned jointly by both Governments and local authorities commencing in 1967 with meetings of Councils, Marine Boards and Governments.

The Premier of Tasmania and the Federal Member for Braddon, Mr Ron Davies, as well as State parliamentarians supported fully the total concept of the service and it was agreed then that a vessel of the tonnage and type of ‘Straitsman’ should service the trade.

Straitsman’ is a vessel of the most modern type, built to the highest international and Australian standards. The manning of the vessel is considerably reduced due to automation and the crewing is comparable under Australian coastal manning scale for a vessel of approximately half the tonnage orless.

Certain persons have for obvious reasons made statements about the trade and the vessel which are completely false. i know that with the cost of the vessel and the infra-structure of terminals, etc., costing several millions that it is most necessary for the economy of the areas and of national importance that ‘Straitsman’ be re-introduced to the trade and that the cargo be consolidated at the ship terminals, in order to eliminate excessive freight charges.

Budgets made out by 3 separate companies show that if the former freight subsidy of $4.35 per ton was made available that the vessel can operate profitably on a freight rate of $12 per ton plus the freight subsidy.

The communities of Circular Head and King Island have requested this service and therefore it is necessary to rationalise the trade to ensure an efficient and economic service.

I and my advisers were disgusted that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Government has failed to honour the undertakings given to my company on 10 October 1972.

  1. H. Houfe, Managing Director

Receiver and Manager Appointed,

  1. H. Houfe & Co. Pty Ltd,
  2. H. Houfe Shipping Pty Ltd.
Mr NIXON:

– Even that is not the end of the sad story of this Minister’s failure to do something constructive for the shipbuilding industry. In today’s ‘Australian’ newspaper there is a report that the Australian National Line has given an order to a West German yard for a $1.5m refit to one of Australia’s overseas ships. I imagine that would be the Australian Enterprise’. There may be some good reasons that have caused the ANL to go to Germany. But surely when the jobs of 1,500 men at Evans Deakin are in jeopardy, when 2 of the oldest companies in Australia are about to close their shipyards and when Adelaide Ship Construction has announced its intention to close, the Minister who claims to have the interest of Australian shipyards at heart would have had the constitutional fortitude to make a decision to consider this job for an Australian yard. Whatever the policy of the previous Government may have been, that is not before us now; the present Minister for Transport is in the saddle and he is not riding too well. It is the present Minister who has failed the Australian shipbuilding industry and he must answer for it.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP

– I am astounded; the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), who was the former Minister for Shipping and Transport, has brought this matter before the House, but all he could talk about in his speech which ran for 12 minutes was all the ills that this Government has not cured. Honourable members will have noticed that I rose in my place and supported the request to debate this matter of public importance because I welcome the opportunity of replying to the frivolous statement that has been made by the former Minister. The honourable member for Gippsland) said that he knows the Department. He ought to; he was the Minister of it. But why did not the honourable member when he was the Minister do something positive about ensuring that there would be a continuity of orders after 2nd December? There is not one order in the pipeline to be allocated to any shipyard, and if ever there is a guilty man he is the honourable member for Gippsland. These are the facts. I challenge the honourable member, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) and the former Minister for Shipping and Transport, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) who will speak last in this debate to give us the facts.

Mr Giles:

– The current facts.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– These are the facts. Let me deal with King Island. I would like to quote from the statement made by Captain Houfe which was incorporated in Hansard by the honourable member for Gippsland. Captain Houfe said:

Budgets made out by three separate Companies show thatif the former freight subsidy of $4.35 per ton was made available the vessel can operate profitably on a freight rate of $12 per ton plus the freight subsidy.

So there, once again, is the guilty man. Captain Houfe took that ship off the run in June 1972 and the then Minister did not do one thing about making sure that that ship remained on the run. As far as the then Minister was concerned they could have tied this ship up for ever. He was not prepared to do one thing about keeping it on the run.

Captain Houfe had an arrangement with the former Minister. One of the agreements was that when Grassy was developed that the subsidy would cease. I stated on behalf of the Australian Labor Party Transport Committee that our Party would do certain things about the ‘Straitsman’ and the King Island trade. This was based on information which came to us from Captain Houfe. I say that Captain Houfe - and I make this statement in complete realisation of what I am saying - misled my Party into believing that the ‘Straitsman’ was a viable proposition. The former Minister knew at the time that it was not a viable proposition. According to what we have since discovered from a close investigation of this matter the facts are that if we were to put the Straitsman’ on, the Australian National Line would lose something like $500,000 a year. Captain Houfe knew that because he lost $90,000 in the first 7 weeks during which this run was operated. The former Minister also knew about it. So he should not come in here and make hypocritical statements about what goes on and what does not go on. The position is that the ‘Straitsman’ is not a proposition. We were not given the facts. The situation is that we have made a deal with the Tasmanian Government. At a meeting the Premier of Tasmania, the Tasmanian Minister for Transport, the Federal Treasurer and I agreed that the ‘Straitsman’ was not and is not a suitable vessel for the King Island trade. For that reason we have come to an arrangement that another ship can be brought on to the run for 2 or 3 years. At the end of 2 years the Tasmanian Government has agreed that it will replace the imported vessel with a ship built in an Australian yard and on which the Commonwealth will pay a subsidy. These are the facts in regard to what has taken place.

Let us have a look at the real situation. When Adelaide Ship Construction completes the shipbuilding work it now has, there will be no further orders for it. The honourable member for Gippsland was the Minister who approved the order for the ship for Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia, for which Adelaide Ship Construction submitted the lowest tender, being allocated to Broken Hill Pty Ltd. The former Minister tolerated this. The same thing applied to the Union Steam Ship Co. of New Zealand’s vessel when the hon ourable member was the Minister. In that case Adelaide Ship Construction was the lowest tenderer but the contract went to BHP. The honourable member was the Minister who was responsible for this decision. So I ask you not to talk to me about what I have not done. I will tell him in a moment what I have done, and it is plenty. That is more than can be said for the honourable member for Gippsland.

It is true that Evans Deakin Industries Ltd is almost out of work at the moment. I do not know what that company is up to. It would appear to me that it is getting up to some skulduggery in trying te put pressure on to the Government. But there is no need to put pressure on the Government because the Government has made sufficient statements on what it is doing to put shipbuilding in Australia on a sound basis so that yards will know where they are going and will be able to act accordingly. Evans Deakin has an order to build a drilling rig. It is not a $20m rig. You know that the cost will be less than $10m. They have an order to build this rig.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister should address the

Chair. I am bit worried about all of the things of which he is accusing the Chair.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The facts are that Evans Deakin has the order if it wants to go on with it. I have word from the Santa-Fe Drilling Company that it has advised Evans Deakin that the job is its, subject to contractual discussions. That is the situation. Yet Evans Deakin has decided that it does not want to go on with this contract. The honourable member for Gippsland said that the Government has done nothing to support this shipbuilding company. Following my approach and a discussion I had with Sir Peter Abeles, this gentleman approached Evans Deakin and, on the assurance given by the Labor Government that it will pay a subsidy on 2 12,500 ton roll-on roll-off ships, the Union Steam Ship Co. of New Zealand has agreed to place orders in Australia. These are 2 ships that Evans Deakin can tender for if it wants to do so. It is a decent job and will involve about $30m, and that is not chicken feed, even for places like Evans Deakin or BHP. Why does it not tender for these 2 jobs if it is fair dinkum?

Mr Nixon:

– They would build them in a week-end.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Do not show your Ignorance like that by making statements that these jobs could be completed in a week-end.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the Minister suggesting that the Chair is showing ignorance?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– No. The former Minister knows full well that this is a decent and exceptionally good order. This order will involve about $30m. To say that Australian companies could build these ships in a weekend just shows what the former Government was burdened with.

There is to be a replacement for the ‘North Esk’. Why did not the former Minister do something about getting the Australian National Line to replace that ship? The ship has only a couple of years to go. An order would not have been placed for a replacement ship for another 2 years but at my request something was done to provide work for the Australian shipbuilding industry. The same thing applies to the Department of the former Minister, which now is under my control, as it relates to the building of a replacement navigational aid ship. Admittedly, this is a small job but it still would provide work for Adelaide Ship Construction. There also is on order the ‘Tolga’ replacement. I have had numerous approaches from various Australian companies that are desirous of building ships in Australia so that they may take part in the Government’s policy that up to 40 per cent of our trade should be carried in Australian ships. On not one occasion did the former Government give any indication of what it was prepared to do on this issue.

Honourable members should examine the shocking record of the previous Government. After 23 years of Liberal Government, .58 per cent of our imports and 1 per cent of our exports are carried in Australian bottoms. The previous Government did not have a policy of any kind with respect to providing this type of work for Australian ships, Australian seamen and Australian shipyards. If the previous Government had had a decent policy, it would have ensured continuity of employment and of orders in the Australian shipbuilding industry. Instead, the previous Government destroyed the confidence of that industry by its backing and filling on the last Tariff Board report. In the first place, it said that ships would be freely imported into Australia. Then, after I had publicly roasted the previous Government through the Press on this issue, it went to water and about 3 months later amended this decision and said that it would not allow the free import of ships into Australia.

The fact that the previous Government imposed a time limit, and it was a very short one at that, 1978 - its policy would have become effective from only about 1973 - created indecision in the shipbuilding industry and caused BHP immediately to abandon its expansion program. The company was prepared to spend $10m to $12m - I do not want to be specific on this matter; I know the amount and so does the previous Minister - on modernising its shipbuilding yard so that it could build ships in excess of 100,000 tons. But the then Government’s policy of despair influenced BHP to abandon the entire scheme. Since we have become the Government, I have had discussions with the top executives of BHP and have put to them where this Government stands and what it is setting out to do. In regard to the policy of the Australian Labor Party, we have written to the Australian Chamber of Shipping and the Australian Council of Trade Unions requesting that they make known their ideas on what they believe should be incorporated in an Australian shipbuilding policy.

Of course, the former Minister for Shipping and Transport puffs and blows on the other side of the table, but is it a crime to consult industry and the trade union movement to ascertain what they believe should be incorporated in a policy? That is what this Government proposes to do. As soon as we receive that information, the Treasurer (Mr Crean), the Minister for Secondary Industry (Dr J. F. Cairns) and myself will draft the policy which we believe will create and provide stability in the shipbuilding industry, instead of the indecision which has existed up till now. I instance the time it took the previous Government to bring down the Tariff Board report. If ever a government should be ashamed of the manner in which it handled an important industry, it is the people sitting on the opposite of the House today, who formed the previous Government, who should be forever damned. They made no attempt to rationalise the industry or to introduce standardisation of ship design.

This Government will move into the heavy ship industry for the carriage of goods on our coast. You are critical of my decision to permit the Australian National Line to import 2 ships in excess of 100,000 tons. They were not brought in-

Mr Giles:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You are now being accused of doing things and you have been villified by the Minister throughout this debate. I think-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Giles:

– I do not think you should take lt from the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not a point of order. The matter already has been dealt with.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The Government permitted the import of these ships, in fact directed - I emphasise the word ‘directed* - the ANL to move into this industry. This ls something which you, as the former Minister and your predecessors, prevented ANL doing, namely, moving into the carriage of oil and the bulk carriage of iron ore. The ANL has moved into this area and the conditions under which these ships will be imported are clearly laid down. At my direction, they will replace these ships with ships of equivalent tonnage. The same thing applies to BHP.

Mr Giles:

– Mi Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will you care for the forms of the House by asking the Minister for Transport to address his remarks to the right source? He is consistently abusing you in your position, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already drawn the attention of the Minister to the fact that he should address the Chair. At the point where the honourable member for Angas took his point of order, the Minister was addressing the Chair. He was not addressing any other person.

Mr Giles:

– Hansard will prove you wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

Mr Deputy Speaker, will you stop this fellow from wasting my time, because that is all that he is trying to do. What I am saying is hurting him and the members of his Party because of the damage they have done to the shipbuilding industry. As I was saying, I directed ANL to take these steps and I have also given BHP permission to import the ship the company is in the processing of importing. In fact I encouraged BHP to do so. I have already requested the ANL to take the appropriate action to move into the carriage of our imports of crude oil and other petroleum products. This is something which the previous Minister or his predecessors never did.

I gave a direction to ANL to move into the field of our trade with Japan and to indicate to the operators in the Japan trade that I wanted up to 40 per cent of our trade carried by Australian shipping, which as the former Minister knows, includes the Flinders Shipping Company. I have had numerous discussions with other shipping companies about Australian participation in our trade with other countries. That is more than can be said of the former Government and the former Ministers who are responsible for raising this issue as a matter of public importance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr NIXON (Gippsland)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NIXON:

– Yes. I do not mind political vilification but I do insist upon the facts, if only for posterity and for the information of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). The Minister said that not one order was available when the former Government left office. That is not true. The Australian National Line had a sea coaster to place. That is one order of which I can think immediately. That order was still to be placed when I left the Ministry on 2nd December.

Mr Charles Jones:

– It has since been allocated.

Mr NIXON:

– The Minister said that there were no orders to be placed when I left office on 2nd December. On that point of fact I would ask the Minister to apologise.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– Since the Australian Labor Party came into office, 2 shipyards in Australia have closed. Shipbuilding is a difficult industry. It is an industry which involves a considerable number of persons. It is an industry which is not only a major source of direct employment but is also a major source of indirect employment. Indeed, it is because of the employment aspects of the industry that I think all of us have looked on the shipbuilding industry as being one of the significant extensions of industrial development in Australia since World War II. Of course, the problem in the shipbuilding industry has been complicated by the very significant degree to which in Australia there is a real dependence upon cheap freight. The cheapness of sea cartage of goods depends upon the availability of adequate cargoes, the availability of adequate tonnage to move those cargoes, the reliability of the forms of transport of those cargoes and the degree to which the turnaround in the ports can be accelerated so that the vessels are kept at sea. In any examination of shipping policy it is important that the cost of moving cargoes and persons, as well as the aspects of shipbuilding, be taken into account.

My condemnation of the Labor Government is that, since it has come into office, the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has not presented an adequate reason either for the closure of the yards or for what he is endeavouring to do in extending Australian ownership and Australian operations into the maritime industry. In his speech this afternoon he referred to several trades. I want to refer briefly to one of them and then come back to what I see as the major issue. He made a number of allegations about the economics of the ‘Straitsman’. Honourable members have not been informed - I certainly have not - of the economics of the ‘Straitsman’ in operation. I commend to the House a letter dated 28th March 1973 written by Mr R. G. Fry, the Managing Director of Queensland Engineers and Agents of Cairns, Queensland. That company built the ‘Straitsman’. This letter appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. I do not propose to read it but ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Is leave granted?

Mr Charles Jones:

– On one condition, that Mr Fry comes and operates the ship if it is such a good thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There can be no conditions. There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

$1.25M STRAITSMAN LEFT HIGH AND DRY

What is wrong with the Straitsman?

Straitsman was built in Cairns at a cost of $ 1.25m.

It was designed by a leading naval architect and to the requirements and experience of Captain Houfe who we understand conducted some years of research on this type of vessel.

We are not so naive as to think that the Government authorities who constructed the wharves at Grassy and Stanley did not know of the design of this ship and this would have been taken into their considerations in spending so much money on 2 ports.

The vessel is classified Al at Lloyds Register of Shipping, has passed all of the Commonwealth Department of Shipping requirements as to stability and safety requirements and was tank tested in England.

The present price of this ship is estimated at more than $2.2m. This is based on recent tenders received for a smaller vessel of 450 tons. The highest tender was about $1.6m before subsidy. The vessel is also built to the requirements of the Australian Seamen’s Union as regards accommodation and amenities.

It seems incredible that after 8 months of wrangling and discussions all of the shipping people who knocked the Straitsman and might operate the ship have now stated that the Straitsman is the vessel they would use in this particular trade.

The Government still maintains it is an uneconomic proposition. This is difficult to understand. In discussions with Captain Maddock (Tasmanian Transport Commission) on King Island, he showed me an extended schedule for the Straitsman and claimed that it would then be a viable proposition. He has also confused the issue by reportedly stating that it was too big for the trade and then suggesting that it be lengthened at a cost of $300,000 to give it sufficient payload.

The ANL looks at a loss of $300,000 to $500,000 per year.

On a freight rate based at about $16 a ton to King Island and on freight forecasts by both R. H. Houfe and William’ Holyman, the ship should make a reasonable profit allowing for a 75 per cent dwt cargo carriage.

We do not profess to be expert ship operators but we are closely associated with the shipping industry in both shipbuilding and repairing of ships. We have established an engineering business in Cairns and expanded it from 3 employees to 350 in 20 years which is financially controlled by the Fry family (Cairns) and claim thatwe know something of business and finance in engineering and shipping.

It is also essential that industry can accept with confidence undertakings and promises from Governments.

We also think’ it is time that politics were put aside and that business sense prevailed and the Straitsman brought back into the service with some rearrangement of capital and/or management.

G. FRY,

Managing Director,

Queensland Engineers and Agents, Cairns, Qld (Builders of the Straitsman).

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The letter in one part states:

On a freight rate based at about $16 a ton to King Island and on freight forecasts by both R. H. Houfe and William Holyman, the ship should make a reasonable profit allowing for a 75 per cent dwt cargo carriage.

Mr Fry goes on to point out that the Straitsman’ was built in Cairns at a cost of $ 1.25m. It was designed specifically to meet the requirements of the Australian Seamen’s Union in regard to accommodation and amenities. The ‘Straitsman’ was designed to specifications which accommodated the requirements of the trade. According to at least one source and on the only facts we have before us - we have no other source and the allegations of the Minister today as to the economics are not in any way justified by any facts he has presented to us - the vessel could be operated profitably.

It is true that under the sections of the Australian National Line Act the Australian National Line is in a position to take over the vessel. Section 17 of the Act enables the Government to direct a special service. I am told that the receiver in possession of the ship has had no approaches from either the Commonwealth Government or the Tasmanian Government and in the interim the Tasmanian Government is apparently being given support by the Federal Government to import another vessel. How will that help the shipbuilding industry? Let me turn to the other aspects of shipbuilding. The Minister for Transport has made a few major proposals about the bulk cartage ships around Australia. These ships will not be built in Australia. The Minister is talking about building 100,000-tonners. I completely endorse his objective of moving into building bigger vessels, but let us be realistic. How many ports in Australia are capable of handling 100,000-ton cargo ships fully laden? Those 100,000-ton vessels, if they could be operated, would make our heavy industries more competitive, but the ports to which they seek to operate, such as Newcastle, Port Kembla and Whyalla, cannot take these big vessels. Yet these are the ports to which these ships should go.

Realistically, what the Labor Government is doing is, to mix one’s metaphors, pulling the wool over the eyes of the shipbuilding industry when it suggests that by permitting the import of a successive number of big bulk vessels the Australian shipbuilding industry will immediately benefit. Unless there is 8 significant upgrading of one or more of the Australian shipyards, I understand that it will not be possible to build a vessel in excess of 100,000 tons. That was certainly the advice given to me when the order came in from the Clutha Co. and we had a series of discussions with the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd in regard to extending its Whyalla yard so that it could build these bigger ships.

The tragedy, or perhaps the irony, of the apparent accommodation that the Minister thought he had come to with Evans Deakin Industries Ltd in Queensland is that, having gone to the company and made some sort of arrangement for the building of a shipbuilding rig, this was in accord with the arrangements that were traditionally provided by the previous Government. In other words, if a ship is built with a shipbuilding subsidy and it proves for various reasons to be uneconomic in the domestic service, to my knowledge there has been no request for the repayment of that subsidy. The previous Government permitted such ships to be exported. It did so because it had a concern for the Australian shipbuilding industry. The problem at Evans Deakin yard is essentially a combination of several factors, the major one being the very real industrial troubles that have occurred there. There is no doubt in a statement made by Mr L. T. Knevitt, the chairman of the company, that the principal reason for the shut down has been industrial stoppages which have caused the loss of 260,000 manhours in the last 2 years.

If the Labor Government believes that it can do something meaningful about the preservation of shipbuilding it should turn its attention to its allies, to the unions on which it relies for support and which it claims to represent here. If the Labor Government does represent the union movement and if it is true as Mr Knevitt suggests, that there has been this very high order of loss of output because of industrial stoppages, it will be quite impossible, irrespective of any policy that the Government introduces in relation to tariffs or anything else, for that company to continue in operation. In other words, the performance of this Government will not be judged on the subsidy support, that is provided but on the efforts it is prepared to make in a meaningful way to reduce the incidence of demarcation disputes and the impact of industrial stoppages in this whole area of heavy industry. It is because it is so essential that one looks at the through-flow of work in these yards that I believe there are very real problems in making an effective future for all the shipbuilding yards in Australia.

The Government must do as the previous Government did. It progressively moved into overseas shipping. The decisions to move into overseas shipping were taken by the LiberalCountry Party Government with the objective of getting the first vessels built overseas and then moving back to Australia to have the repair work and the building carried out. But ironically even today, according to this morning’s ‘Australian’, the Australian National Line is giving a $I.5m order to West Germany for the refitting of one of its container ships. How ironical it is for the Minister for Transport to express concern for the shipbuilding industry when a company for which he is responsible finds it necessary to have its ships repaired overseas. The Government will stand condemned until it can produce both positive policies in the form of forward orders for the industry and in the form of a positive program of financial assistance and a positive program to reduce the measure of industrial unrest which for so long has plagued what otherwise would have been a very great heavy industry.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– One does not need gall up polls, helpful though they are, to know how well this Government has been performing and how badly the Opposition has been performing. One has only to listen to the speeches that have been made in this debate to know why the gallup polls are telling the story that they are telling. The proposal of this matter for discussion is the most cynical, stupid, unreasonable proposal that could possibly be imagined. Let me supplement what has already been said by my colleague, the Minister for Transport Mr Charles Jones) by setting out the reasons why I make such a claim. Firstly, let me remind the House that this new Federal Labor Government was elected on 2nd December last, just 4 months ago last Monday, the day before yesterday. Let me further remind the House that the Ministry was elected 10 days later, on 18th December. That was the day the honourable member for Newcastle took up his position as Minister for Transport - just 106 days ago. This is important because it highlights the lack of reasonableness and credibility of this proposal of a matter for discussion, and of those who composed it and who support it now.

We are dealing with the shipbuilding industry, an industry which requires a vast amount of planning over a long period. The pipeline between the order being placed and the keel being laid is something like 4 to 6 months long in the particular area of the shipbuilding industry in which we are interested. Any reasonable person who knows anything about the scheduling of shipbuilding, as the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) should know, and who asserts that in 106 days anyone, even Houdini himself, could have had any substantial effect whatsoever on the shipbuilding closures which are taking place, it would seem, at the present time is misleading this House or is very ignorant of this subject. Let me make this point quite clear: The troubles in the shipbuilding industry date very definitely and very clearly from the day the decision was made to widen the paying of shipbuilding subsidies beyond the 6 recognised yards that existed at that time. That decision was made by a Liberal-Country Party Government, by the very men who have raised this time-wasting matter in the Parliament today.

Let me outline for the House my interest in this matter. That interest, needless to say, stems from the tragic situation being faced by a company operating in my own city of Adelaide, Adelaide Ship Construction, a subsidiary of the Adelaide Steamship Industries Pty Ltd. This company also is in the course, as we have heard, of being closed down in spite of great efforts on the part of the present Minister and indeed on the part of every Labor member in the House of Representatives from South Australia.

Mr Nixon:

– What has he done?

Mr HURFORD:

– I will outline what we have done and I will show that the company and even the men concerned who are losing their jobs realise at this time where the guilty party is sitting. The guilty party is sitting in the seat of the honourable member for Gippsland, and the guilty parties are sitting on the rows of benches behind him and are those who supported him in government and supported him despite the lack of policies when he was the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I will outline now how I make that assertion. We have just had an interjection from another South Australian member, a Liberal member. I must say that I am not at all aware of one finger being lifted by any member of the Opposition parties from South Australia in this tragic situation that is facing Adelaide Ship Construction at the present time. This company, as I say, is in the course of being closed down. I shall outline now what we have done and the stage we have reached in trying to save this company. It is a company, incidentally, which has built ships of wonderful quality for 14 years. It is a company which has built ships of a tonnage of anything up to 12,000 tons. It is a company which employs at this time up to 800 residents of my city of Adelaide. It is a company which sub-contracts work to many other companies in my State and which we value greatly. This company in a few months time, on present indications, will no longer be operating because of the totally inadequate policies of the previous Government, the McMahon Liberal-Country Party Government.

The sad fate which is befalling this company has, let me be honest, come somewhat as a surprise to the company as well as to a number of the rest of us. There were 2 contracts in the pipeline which we expected this company to get. One was for a 4,000-ton vessel which was ordered by the Union Steam Ship Co. of Australia and New Zealand, part of the bulk ships group. The other was for a 12,000-ton vessel ordered by the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia. In both cases the Adelaide Ship Construction tender was over $300,000 less than that of the successful tenderer. In both cases the successful tenderer was the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd of Whyalla.

My Labor colleagues and I, with the help of the Minister, have turned every stone we know in our attempt to save this shipyard. I myself have had personal contact with Sir Peter Abeles, the Chairman of the Union Steam Ship Co.; with Sir Edward Cohen, the Chairman of the Electrolytic Zinc Co.; and with Sir Ian McLennan, the Chairman of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. I know that I have been merely covering the same ground as Mr Don Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia. I also know that my Labor colleagues from South Australia have made similar efforts. But the die was cast. The contracts had already been let. The Minister for Transport pointed his finger at the honourable member for Gippsland and pointed out that these contracts were let in the time when the honour able member for Gippsland was the Minister for Shipping and Transport. At every turn we were up against the fact that BHP at Whyalla could not let go one of these contracts because that company alleged that this would have meant unemployment in the shipbuilding industry at Whyalla. All we could do to save Adelaide Ship Construction was to have one of these contracts transferred from Whyalla to the Adelaide Ship Construction yards in Adelaide because, I repeat, the pipeline in shipbuilding is such - and members like the honourable member for Gippsland ought to know this - that if the present Minister could have found any other contract for this company it would have taken 4 to 6 months before the keel was laid and would have been too late to save that company.

It comes down to this sad but incontrovertible fact: Because of the policies of the Liberal and Country Parties there are too many shipbuilding yards in Australia and there has been no planning to ensure continuity of orders. When the subsidies were widened to the extent that they were payable to any yard, there was no longer continuity of work for the existing yards. For those who like to seek comfort in blaming the unions, as did the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party, let me say that my experience with the unions concerned with Adelaide Ship Construction could leave these accusers of the unions absolutely clotheless. My remarks apply both to the Adelaide union secretaries concerned and to the shop stewards at the Adelaide Ship Construction yard. No-one in the unions or in management makes the claim that everything has been perfect in the Adelaide Ship Construction shipyard or indeed in other ship yards in Australia. Of course there have been demarcation disputes, as there are in all the yards. Of course the management has made wrong decisions which have exasperated the men and tested their patience. But the raw material was there - the skills of men and the other raw materials that go into building a ship - with great potential for government leadership. Until 2nd December that leadership was totally lacking. Since 2nd December it has been too late, it would seem, for Adelaide Ship Construction and for Evans Deakin Industries Ltd. The Minister has ably outlined all he has done to create orders. If only this had been done in time, perhaps this time last year, it would mean that the employment of men in these yards would now be secure. The closures of these yards are a tragedy. Those of us who know personally men who are employed in these yards are sickened by what has happened, but there is nothing we can do. What has happened has been due to the failure of the previous Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– If ever I have seen a display of shedding crocodile tears in the 6 years I have been in this Parliament, I have just witnessed it. One only has to look at the public gallery to see how it has cleared while the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) was speaking. He asked what the Australian Labor Party in government could have done in some 123 days. I would say that it has done this already: It has created a new national record in the field of inflation. It has been estimated that the rate of inflation this year will be more than 8 per cent. The Government has embraced China, it has insulted the United States of America and it has raided the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the question before the House..

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Okay, you don’t have to tell me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will show more courtesy towards the Chair. He has already been warned by the Speaker a few times.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Right. I just referred to those things to show that if this new Government, which has paraded itself as a government on the go, had really been fair dinkum, it could have done something about this very problem. For the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to accuse the management of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd of being up to skulduggery is, to my mind, a display of sheer and utter impudence. In the. last 6 years that company has lost almost $6m in its shipbuilding operations. The directors of that company - the men the Minister described as being up to skulduggery - have literally torn out their hair in an endeavour to get that company on a sound footing. The Government came to office because of certain promises, but what it is offering is not sufficient to keep this company operating. In the last 2 years the company has lost more, than 250,000 man-hours - a loss which is 10 times the national average and equivalent to 100 man-years. How much can any company sustain? In the last 6 months it has lost $1,228,000. All that Evans Deakin is asking for and all that is needed - I wonder whether the Minister will respond to this request - is for the Federal Government to legislate to provide in Australia a viable shipbuilding industry which will ensure continuity of employment. It is also asking that all unions engaged in shipbuilding, once assured of continuity of employment, enter into an industry agreement which will have as its objective the maintenance of an efficient industry assured of long term profitable conduct.

During my earlier years here the Minister for Transport, as a member- of the Opposition, spoke many times about the Australian shipbuilding industry. In listening to him one gained the impression that he was greatly interested in shipbuilding. However, I will refer to this later. All honourable members would know that if Evans Deakin is to keep operating it needs one vessel in. the planning stages, one in the building stages and one being fitted out. It also needs this new Government to do something to ensure that the 30 per cent to 47i per cent escalation in wages, which has occurred over the last 2 years, is curtailed so that it can compete on the overseas market. It is interesting to consider some of the history related to shipbuilding, especially as members on the. Government side, delight in referring to the past. I am primarily interested in today and tomorrow, and what will happen to the people who work in the shipbuilding industry. On 2nd October last year the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), when he was at Evans Deakin said:

We should not just limit our sights to shipping trade around the Australian coast -or to ships which are carrying Australian imports and exports to and from other countries. We also ought to look at the position of building ships for other countries.

That was a brave statement. He went on to say that we should become an exporter of vessels. He cited Germany, Japan, Britain, Sweden and Norway as countries which gave encouragement for the export of ships and dwelt on the fact that they gave tax concessions, long term credit and subsidies to the shipbuilders.

I ask the Prime Minister: What has been done about introducing the measures he cited to help the industry? 1 also ask the Minister for Transport to clarify the position. What appeared to be embraced in the Prime Minister’s undertaking now appears to be a direct contradiction in practice. I refer to the export of vessels and subsidies and the premature announcement of the Minister for Transport which suggested, at least to the Press, that Evans Deakin and the Santa Fe drilling company had signed a contract. On 28th March, at page 773 of Hansard, the Minister is reported to have said:

As a result of a decision made recently by the Cabinet, the Government has given the Santa Fe drilling company an assurance that, if the rig is built in Australia and on completion is held on the coast for a reasonable time, no attempt will be made by the Government to recapture the subsidy on the building of the rig.

So much for export incentives! What does the Minister mean by the words ‘reasonable time’? Would the Minister mind returning to the table and listening to what I have to say? Thousands of people in Queensland are concerned with what is to happen to this industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! Would the honourable member mind addressing the Chair and not the Minister?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Will you bring him back to the table, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Nixon:

– The Minister is not interested. Mr DONALD CAMERON- The Minister is not interested.

Mr Keogh:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Griffith has claimed that the Minister for Transport is not interested. The Minister has shown his interest by the action he has taken already. It is not the responsibility of the honourable member for Griffith to say such things. It is a problem for the people of Griffith that they have him to represent them in this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– From the information I have gathered, the Minister has not given this undertaking to the Santa Fe company in writing nor explained what he means by a ‘reasonable time’. This was certainly so at the time the directors of the Santa Fe oil drilling company flew back to the United States after the contract deal failed. Therefore it appears that the Minister, in answering a Dorothy Dix type of question, has made a direct contribution to the stalemate.

Queenslanders have every justification for arriving at the. conclusion that the Australian Labor Party’s Minister will let Evans Deakin rip if it comes to a toss up between the shipyard in his electorate and any other shipyard. A fortnight ago the shipyard in his electorate had 4 ships either in the course of construction or awaiting construction. That situation is a dream come true for a shipbuilder, but now another layer of cream has been added to the dream and that shipyard has been allocated a fifth vessel. The Government has announced a willingness to give $17. 5m for the establishment of a floating dock in Newcastle, presumably for vessels of over 100,000 tons. Millions have been spent in blasting the rock bottom of Newcastle harbour to give it a depth of 36 feet. The 105,000 ton vessel, Iron Somersby’, according to Lloyd’s register has a draught of 48 feet 6 inches. Considering the plight of the industry in Queensland and South Australia it is not unjust to conclude that the Minister has succumbed to the temptation of multi-nepotism for his electors in Newcastle. I ask him to justify the fifth vessel and to explain what is behind the favoured son treatment of Newcastle.

When one refers to the number of men who may be affected by the decision of Evans Deakin to close unless certain requests are met; one must look beyond the 750 men working at that place. There are a further 700 contractors with another 400 persons working as suppliers to those contractors. A further 400 of the population depend for their living on the expenditure of the men who are earning because of the shipbuilding industry in Queensland. With the families involved this number totals some 9,000 to 10,000. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope you take notice because you will be sitting on this side of the House one day, that some 9,000 to 10,000 people in Brisbane and in Queensland depend on what happens to the Evans Deakin shipyard. Their right to exist is tied up with that company. I hope that the Minister, in administering his portfolio, will try to be realistic.

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes, by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald - Cameron). He accused me of nepotism with respect to the Newcastle electorate and said that I gave favoured treatment to the State Dockyard by allocating the Australian National Line’s ‘Seacoaster’ to it. The Newcastle State Dockyard secured that vessel because its tender was $2m lower than the tender of Evans Deakin and Sim lower than the tender from Adelaide Ship Construction. Regarding his accusations of nepotism because of the decision of the Government to build a graving dock in Newcastle, I point out that that was the recommendation of the interdepartmental committee which reported to the previous Government on this matter. It recommended that a 120,000-ton dock be built at Newcastle.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to a point of order. From what the Minister has said, am I to understand that for $lm or $2m the Minister is prepared to see the Evans Deakin shipyard closed down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– What is the honourable member’s point of order?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am just asking whether that is a valid point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No point of order is involved and the honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– The opening statement by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) was an indication of the misstatements and distortions of fact he made right throughout his speech. He talked about the gallery, which at that time was almost full, being empty while an address was being made to this House by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). 1 am sure that honourable members will have noticed how the gallery emptied while the honourable member for Griffith spoke. I would like to make him an offer. If he can get enough copies of that speech made I will take them down to the Evans Deakin shipyard and distribute them to all the employees there. I realise the honourable member does not know where the Evans Deakin shipyard is although it is in his electorate.

The honourable member’s accusation that the Government is not interested in the welfare of the workers at Evans Deakin shipyard is typical of the accusations he made during the last Parliament but, of course, then he was criticising his own Government. The headline in the ‘Courier Mail’ on 2nd May 1972 stated ‘Support for shipbuilders lacking*. The article went on to say that the honourable member for Griffith had said the previous night that Government policy on the shipbuilding industry was not being applied. The article quoted the honourable member as saying that his inquiries indicated that the policy of the Government, which should have been directed towards developing the industry - he referred to the use of imported ships on the Australian coast - was not being strictly applied and that extensions of permission to use imported vessels were frequently granted. He knew then where the blame for the state of the shipbuilding industry in Australia truly lay. As the honourable member for Adelaide said earlier, it is truly remarkable that the Opposition had the colossal effrontery to propose such a subject for discussion in this House this afternoon. I certainly agree that this is a matter of public importance and with one small alteration to the wording of the subject proposed for discussion I could wholeheartedly agree with it. It is not the failure of this Government but the failure of past Liberal-Country Party governments oyer a long period of time to prevent the closure of major Australian shipyards which is the issue.

The last Government failed throughout the disastrous 23 years it was in office to show any sense of appreciation of the vital need to develop the Australian shipbuilding industry. Not once during the long period the coalition governments were in office was the industry shown the slightest indication that it was anything more than an industry to be tolerated. Not once did the previous Government show the industry any degree of understanding of the need of shipyards to receive the style of leadership that the present Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is showing. The honourable member for Griffith quoted from a statement issued by Mr Knevitt of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd yesterday which said that his company was anxious for certain undertakings to be given by this Government so that consideration may be given te the reversal of the company’s decision to close its yard. The statement suggested that the Federal Government legislate to provide a viable shipbuilding industry in Australia and stated that all unions engaged in shipbuilding, once assured of continuity of employment, would enter into an industrial agreement.

These are the very things which the previous Government could have done but failed to do. They are the things which for many years members on this side of the Parliament, while in Opposition, urged the Government to put into effect. The headlines that we have seen in recent days referring to the pending closure of the Evans Deakin shipyard are not new headlines. They are headlines which have been repeated on many occasions over the last few years. I have with me several of these headlines. On 6th May 1972 there was the headline: ‘If shipyard is shut “it will not reopen” ‘. This, according to the newspaper, was said by the company’s chairman of directors, Mr Hoare. On 1st June the ‘Brisbane Telegraph’ said: ‘Government plans may close shipyards’. Again in the ‘Courier Mail’ on 10th May was the headline: ‘What’s killing shipbuilding in Australia’. That report went on to say:

Evans Deakin’s Brisbane shipyard will have to close for good unless an early order is received, the company Chairman (Mr J. H. Hoare) said on Friday.

On and on went the condemnation of the previous Government for the situation that has developed in the shipbuilding industry today. Another statement was made in August by the chairman of the Australian Shipbuilders Association, Dr Hughes. He said that shipbuilders throughout Australia were concerned at the Government’s nonchalance. The ‘Financial Review’ on 21st September said:

For the third time since the Government introduced its shipbuilding policy on May 31 - in a distinct departure from the terms of the Tariff Board’s report on shipbuilding - the industry has again told the Government that it is completely dissatisfied with that policy.

Of course, that referred not to the policy of this Government but to the policy of the previous Government, a policy which for many years had failed to show an appreciation of the needs of the Australian shipbuilding industry. I had occasion to work in the Evans Deakin shipyard some 20 years ago and the situation today is the same as it was then. Continuity of work was never available and, consequently, the men in the yard never knew from one week to the next where their future existence lay. Rather than being critical of the present Government, Evans Deakin has been high in its praise of the action which this Government has taken since coming to power on 2nd December. In the same statement from which I quoted previously, Mr Knevitt said:

In the interests of Australian and Queensland industry, the company has tried to keep shipbuilding going - with a result over a lengthy period of a considerable cost to shareholders. Continuation of shipbuilding at a level similar to that experienced over the past, few years would inevitably lead to the collapse of the entire company.

The Federal Government through the Minister for Transport, has quickly recognised the predicament of the shipbuilding industry. The Minister has been active in promoting ideas which in the very long term would lead to a viable industry.

Mr Knevitt went on to say, and this was referred to by a Government speaker earlier, that problems amongst the unions and stoppages have caused many of the problems resulting in the decision to close the Evans Deakin shipyard in August this year. Mr Knevitt very understandably said:

Generally employees in an industry faced with closure tend to- ‘string out’ the final stages of a contract. This has- been a recurring problem within our shipyard previously and has been accentuated in the last 6 months.

In the last. 6 months, not in the last 6 weeks. The actions of the previous Government created in all sections of the shipbuilding industry the uncertainty that exists today. Its failure to place orders and the uncertainty amongst management and workers at the various shipyards have naturally resulted in the companies not being prepared to outlay capital for the development of their yards. The previous Government Was grasping at straws because it could not develop positive policies. During its long term in office not once did it come forward with a semblance of a decent policy to secure economic development in the industry and to guarantee the future of this vital Australian industry.

Today the Government is to be congratulated on the progress it has made towards the implementation of the policies it has determined in the short time that it has been in office. The Labor Government has already taken positive steps to inject new life into the shipbuilding industry and, given the opportunity, I am sure that the future of the shipbuilding industry in Brisbane will be guaranteed under this Government, if not at Kangaroo Point then certainly by the redevelopment of the shipyards - perhaps through a combination of Federal and State Government

Interests, together with Evans Deakin if it is interested in assisting - at the new site of Fisherman’s Island at the mouth of the Brisbane River which Evans Deakin has intended to develop.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 1069

LOAN BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is a machinery measure which is necessary to meet legal and constitutional requirements associated with the Government’s end-of-year financial transactions. Honourable members will be aware that the Australian Government’s transactions are recorded in 3 separate funds - the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. Current estimates of the Government’s financial transactions indicate that expenditures in 1972-73 on items presently being charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund will exceed receipts of that Fund. However, expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot be appropriated in excess of receipts of that Fund; a deficit, therefore, cannot be incurred.

The normal procedure followed in the past to cope with a situation in which there was a prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund has been to charge some expenditures which would normally be met from that Fund to another fund. This Bill is designed to permit such a procedure. The Bill authorises that borrowings be made for defence purposes so that defence expenditures in the remaining months of the year can then be charged to the Loan Fund rather than the Consolidated Revenue Fund, thus utilising funds available in the Loan Fund and avoiding a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Bill does not, I should stress, seek to authorise any additional expenditures; its purpose is simply to re-allocate part of expenditures on defence services specified in the relevant Appropriation Acts for 1972-73 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund.

While it is clear that, on the basis of the 1972-73 Budget provisions and subsequent measures, Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures will exceed Consolidated Revenue Fund receipts in 1972-73 by a significant margin it is not possible at this stage to forecast precisely the likely Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit. Much will depend on the flow of tax payments, which is only now gathering momentum and therefore difficult to forecast with a high degree of accuracy. The Bill before the House would provide authority for borrowings up to $300m - a figure which is considered adequate to meet any deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund that can reasonably be foreseen at this time. Finally, I would emphasise again that the proposed Act is a machinery measure of a kind taken in past years when a similar situation has arisen. It does not authorise any increase in expenditures. Its essential purpose is to re-allocate expenditures approved by Parliament between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bonnett) adjourned.

page 1069

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1973

Bill presented by Mr Clyde Cameron, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

The Bill proposes an increase in the statutory maximum rate of charge which can be imposed on the employment of class A waterside workers. The Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act 1947-1971 provides for the assessment and collection of the Stevedoring Industry charge at rates prescribed by regulation under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act. Different rates are payable in respect of the classes of waterside workers. Class A waterside workers are registered regular waterside workers employed on weekly hire at permanent or continuous ports. Class B waterside workers are employed at continuous non-permanent ports. Class C waterside workers are those employed at noncontinuous ports and include irregular waterside workers on Part B of the register at all ports.

The Stevedoring Industry Charge Act limits the rate of the charge payable in respect of the employment of these three classes of waterside workers as defined in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act. The maximum rates of charge under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act are $1 per manhour, $1.75 per man-hour and $1.20 per man-hour for A, B, and C classes respectively. The actual rate charged within these maximums is fixed by regulation and, in the case of class A waterside workers, the rate charged is now at the maximum.

The purpose of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1973 is to amend the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1971 to permit the charge to be imposed at rates up to $1.50 per man-hour for class A waterside workers. The amendment is necessary because the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has found itself unable to meet its financial commitments with regard to class A waterside workers from the charge revenue. An increase is now needed because of changes that have occurred in wage rates and conditions of employment and because of further increases which will affect the level of payments to be made by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in respect of long service leave and idle time. 1 am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has authorised me to announce that part of the increase in the levy will be attributable to new funding arrangements for the guaranteed minimum wage in non-permanent ports. These payments, formerly funded by the employers through a levy applicable only to non-permanent ports, will now be funded through the general industry levy applicable to all ports. It is not known just how much will be needed to fund these ports. Estimates vary from as little as 3c as at the beginning of the year to as much as 10c, being the amount which it is anticipated might be needed in the event of there being increased wage rates or other increased charges upon the fund. In the circumstances, the Government believes that the proper course to follow at this stage is to increase the charge in the way outlined. This amendment will not in itself vary the present rate of the charge. The actual rate of charge, as I said before, is fixed by regulation and any alteration is made after considering a recommendation from the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bonnett) adjourned.

page 1070

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL TRAINING) BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I move:

This Bill seeks authority for the Government to provide an additional $10m to the States for technical training facilities. The existing legislation provides for grants totalling $36m during the 3-year period ending 30th June 1974, and the purpose of this Bill is to increase by $10m the funds available during this period.

There has been in recent years increased recognition in this country of the need for a more adequate provision for vocational training in the various skills required in the Australian work force. Honourable members will recall the conclusions of the Australian Tripartite Mission which in 1 968 and 1969 studied the methods of training skilled workers in Europe and which concluded that there was an urgent need for a critical examination of all aspects of vocational training in Australia. It will be recalled that the Mission observed that Australian governments were not providing sufficient funds for industrial training and that the amounts devoted to technical education were small compared to the expenditure on general and tertiary education.

The Government intends, that this situation will be remedied, and we are determined that technical and further education should receive the same consideration as will be given to the other areas of education. The Government has therefore decided to establish a commission which will examine the needs of technical and further education and make recommendations to the Government on financial assistance that should be provided to the States in these areas. I am confident that this measure will place technical education in Australia on a more satisfactory basis than has to date been the case.

The commission will be established as soon as possible, and assistance for technical and further education after 30th June 1974 will be on the basis of the recommendations of the commission. In the meantime, the Government wishes to ensure that additional capital projects of an urgent nature are not delayed until after that date, and this Bill to provide supplementary grants totalling $10m is an interim measure intended to raise the level of assistance available under the existing arrangements. The Government’s decision to introduce this legislation is in accord with a request from State Ministers of Education that additional funds be provided for urgent building projects that could be undertaken during the current triennium.

The supplementary grants of $10m that the Bill will make available will increase the funds available to the States in the present triennium to $46m. As in the existing legislation, the funds will be allocated to the States in proportion to State population. The following table sets out the amount available to each State:

The present program is intended to assist the States provide buildings and equipment for the training of young men and women undertaking trade and certificate courses in technical colleges and trade schools, and for similar courses at agricultural colleges and rural training schools. The existing arrangements for the scheme will continue until 30th June 1974, with the exception that the Bill provides that grants may now be used for the purchase of land which is to be used for technical education facilities.

Although grants under this program have not in the past been able to be used for this purpose, this provision exists in similar States grants legislation in the fields of university and advanced education, and the Government has accepted the view of the State Ministers of Education that this program should include the purchase of land in appropriate circumstances. One consequence of the relative neglect of technical education in the past has been that the sites of the older technical colleges located in city areas are generally overcrowded and restricted. In order to remedy this situation, funds will now be available under the program, where necessary, to assist the States to acquire sites for technical education institutions.

There are 2 provisions in the Bill which will allow the Government flexibility in bringing this program to a conclusion. The Bill empowers the Minister to authorise a payment to a State after 30th June 1974 for funds appropriated under the legislation, of amounts for expenditure incurred in respect of an approved project undertaken before that date. The Bill further provides that the amounts specified in the Schedule for any State may be varied by regulations within the limit of the total amount specified in the Schedule. These provisions will cover any situation that could arise because of unforeseen delays in State building programs, and will facilitate the transition to the new arrangements when this program is concluded.

The proposed supplementary grants reflect the Government’s interest in an area of education that I believe is of vital national concern. I am confident that the supplementary grants will provide the States with sufficient additional capacity to carry out urgent building projects until the nature and extent of the needs in this area of education can be assessed in a systematic way by the commission. While this is an interim measure, it is a necessary one, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bonnett) adjourned.

page 1071

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is the Government’s policy to increase the numbers of qualified social workers in the community and the main purpose of this Bill is to provide unmatched grants totalling $75,000 for the University of Sydney and $240,000 for the University of Melbourne in the current triennium to enable the universities concerned to increase the numbers of students being trained as social workers at those universities, commencing this year. Several other universities have submitted proposals for increasing the numbers of students being trained as social workers in 1974 and these proposals are now being considered. However, the Universities of Sydney and

Melbourne were able to make immediate increases in the numbers undertaking thensocial work courses and the Government has recognised their response by providing additional financial assistance.

The Government, with the agreement of the South Australian Government, has also taken the opportunity in this Bill to make 2 minor machinery amendments to the Second and Sixth Schedules to the Act to authorise a variation in the building programs of the University of Adelaide both on campus and at one of its medical teaching hospitals, the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The variations, which have been requested by the University of Adelaide and are supported by the Australian Universities Commission, do not increase the total capital grants provided. in the current triennium. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 1072

ATOMIC ENERGY BELL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to abolish the full time position of executive member of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and to substitute a part time position of member. The full time position of executive member was established by amendment of the principal Act in 1958. At that time, each member of the Commission, including the Chairman, held office part time. The position of Chairman has been occupied on a full time basis for a number of years and it is unnecessary to retain a full time position of executive member. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 1072

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1973

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole?

Mr Daly:

– Yes.

Mr Lynch:

– We want to take the Bill clause by clause. I point out to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) that I think he will find at the end of the debate that there will not be any delay if we adopt this course. I think the honourable gentleman will find that honourable members on this side understand the problem that he has in getting the Bill through.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Do you wish to take the clauses separately?

Mr Lynch:

– Yes.

Mr Daly:

– May I make a statement on this in order to assist the. Committee? The Bill lends itself more to being taken as a whole than to taking the clauses individually. I point out that the first 2 clauses in the Bill are more or less machinery provisions and a full discussion will come about on the other clauses. I suggest to honourable members opposite that if they want an uninhibited debate they should take the Bill as a whole because otherwise inevitably there will be delay and their right to criticise will be restricted following consideration of the first 2 clauses, which deal with the title and commencement of the Act. I have just suggested to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), who is seated at the table, that there is no political approach in it. I do think it would be beneficial to all concerned if we adopted that procedure.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Matters to be considered in distribution of a State).

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

– I rise to oppose clause 3 and the Bill in general. Although the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) has said that this Bil] is a means of bringing about electoral justice I say that it will not do that. It denies electoral justice. Clause 3 relates to matters to be considered in the distribution of a State. The Minter has led us along the garden path in this matter. He says that matters which have been previously considered are not now relevant. I remind him that this is not consistent with’ what he claims the aims of the Labor Party are or have been. I refer him to Queensland. This is the very State which he criticised in regard to a gerrymander. I wish to show him what the Labor attitude in that State was in the past to provisions such as those in this clause of the Bill.

I refer him to the election of 1956 which was fought on the basis of a Labor distribution. I have the official figures for the Queensland State general election held in 1956 showing the enrolment for each electorate in Queensland at that time. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate this table in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr ADERMANN:

– If I may take a few figures from that table, it will be found that at that time there were in Queensland 9 seats with an enrolment of fewer than 6,000 voters. The seats varied from 4,367 in Charters Towers to about 5,500 in the western shearer seats. These seats were called ‘shearer seats’ because almost invariably they were won by Labor. At that election the Liberal Party held a number of seats in the city of Brisbane. The enrolment figures for those seats were astounding. I will refer to just one or two of them. For the seat of Mount Gravatt the enrolment was 26,307, for Kedron it was 19,675, and for Chermside it was 17,708. I could go on to mention other seats. But all I want to do is to throw back to the Minister the very words he used in the debate on the second reading: ‘What a mockery of democracy; what a gerrymander’. The Queensland Labor Party was asked to justify this large variation in the figures. It was not 10 per cent; it was not 20 per cent. The percentage ran into hundreds. The answer given by the Queensland Labor Party at that time was: You have to consider these western seats. You have to consider the geography of the area, the vastness of the area, the sparsity of population and the difficulties that members have in representing these areas.’ That was the reason the Labor Party in Queensland gave for this gerrymander which operated for a period of 25 years.

Mr Keogh:

– Who was the Premier?

Mr ADERMANN:

– It was Mr Gair. That was under a Labor redistribution. I can quote the figures for the 1947 and 1950 elections in Queensland. In 1947 Labor polled just under 43 per cent of the total vote and won 35 seats. In the same year the UAP-Country Party coalition polled 44.26 per cent of the total vote and won 23 seats. It had a majority of 2 per cent of the vote but it won 12 seats fewer than Labor. At the next election held in 1950 Labor with 46.3 per cent of the vote won 42 seats. The Liberal-Country Party coalition with 48 per cent of the vote - 2 per cent more than Labor - won 31 seats which was 1 1 seats fewer than the Labor Party won. Now this Minister, this Party, this Government comes to us and tells us that they are not interested in a gerrymander. They say: All we are trying to do is to bring about justice. All we are trying to do is to bring about a situation of one vote one value. This has always been enshrined in Labor policy.’ I say that those figures show how insincere Labor’s claims are. That is why the Labor Party destroyed itself in Queensland and why it was thrown out of office. At that time the black days ended and Queensland’s salvation came.

Clause 3 would eliminate those factors which Labor at one time thought were necessary but about which now for political expediency Labor has changed its mind. This provision will not establish democracy; it is a denial of the rights of electors. Electors have a right to have ready access to their member. They have the right to expect a continual physical coverage of his electorate. They have the right to expect him to be available to every local authority and in every local authority area in his electorate. They expect him to be in attendance at functions throughout his electorate and to be available to his electors virtually at any time. This is easy and even practicable in the cities where the size of electorates is 3 or 4 square miles. But in country electorates this type of representation is faced with formidable problems. It would be impossible for members who represent rural areas adequately to look after their electors if this Bill came to fruition because the special interest provisions would be eliminated and country seats would become larger and city seats smaller. This legislation would make it impossible for a country member to service adequately his electorate and it would deny country electors the democratic rights to which they are entitled.

The Minister said that Australians are Australians. He went on to say that the people of this country are not divided into 2 great camps - those of city and country. But the Minister then went on to create 2 great camps. One camp will be a favoured camp where people have ready access to their member of Parliament who has a small area to service and the other camp will be the vast rural area, such as that of Queensland. Even now these areas are almost impossible to service. But the Minister wants to make the load of country representatives even greater. He wants to deny to the electors who live in these areas their democratic rights. What the Minister has proposed is not democratic. He spent half of his speech attacking the Country Party as did every other speaker from the other side of the House. The Minister gagged the debate when only 4 Country Party members out of 12 who wanted to speak on the second reading debate had had a chance to do so. He gagged the debate because he knew from where his opposition was coming - from the Country Party.

At what section is the Minister aiming in this Bill? He is not concerned only with the Country Party. He is aiming at every country elector in Australia who lives outside the capital cities. The Minister wants to give more seats to electors in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Newcastle and Wollongong which already have half of the members in this place. How many more does the Minister want. I oppose this clause and I oppose the Bill because I remember Labor in Queensland in the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s. I remember the injustices that took place in that State. I judge the Labor Party and condemn it on its record in Queensland. I remember the Labor Party’s gerrymandering. What Labor has done in the past it now wants to do in this legislation. This Bill is part of a process towards that end. I will oppose the clause under consideration and the Bill with my vote.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– I desire firstly to refer to some of the points made by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) who no doubt will recall that on a previous occasion I referred to his leader in the Queensland Parliament, the man who through acts of gerrymander and not through the decision of the electors is the Premier of Queensland today. I referred to him as the greatest living hypocrite in politics in Australia today. I take this opportunity to repeat that Queenslanders know how true that is. They showed their opinion of the Premier of Queensland last Saturday in the elections that were held in the Greater Brisbane area.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Deputy Chairman, is it proper for an honourable member in this place to use terms about people outside this Parliament which that honourable member would not be allowed to use about people inside this Parliament?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) - Order! I would ask the honourable member to contain himself and adopt the normal usages of the House.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Deputy Chairman, the honourable member used the term the greatest living hypocrite in Australian polities’, and this was entirely offensive to me and entirely offensive to every honourable member on this side of the chamber. I would ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw those terms.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- At the time those remarks were made there were quite a lot of interjections from the table. I would ask the honourable member to proceed.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Deputy Chairman, the words that were used were used very clearly and were heard by every person in this chamber. They will be recorded in Hansard. May I persist and ask that you ask the honourable member to withdraw the words he used? The honourable member said: The greatest living hypocrite in Australian polities’, and those words are entirely offensive and entirely evil.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I call the honourable member for Bowman.

Mr KEOGH:

– I have not been asked to withdraw those remarks. Of course I have not; and why should I? I will accept the concern of members of the Australian Country Party for the type of man that leads their Party in Queensland. I intend to make some further remarks about the actions of this gentleman. During the second reading debate on the Bill several Opposition members suggested that because we wish to amend the Act to introduce a sense of justice into the redistri bution that is about to take place and to take away the heavy weighting in favour of the Country Party that has protected that Party and enabled it to send back to this Parliament members such as the honourable member for Kennedy. (Mr Katter) who would not be here otherwise-

Mr Katter:

– You come out and contest the seat.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! I would ask the honourable member to desist. Unless he contains himself and refrains from interjecting I will have to name him. The honourable member will not receive another warning.

Mr KEOGH:

– I understand that the honourable member is offended when I refer to him as the honourable member for Kennedy because, of course, he seldom goes there. He spends most of his time at Kenmore. The second point I want to make is that the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) said that the proposed legislation would cause redistributions to be conducted so frequently that they would be absurd and that perhaps a redistribution would be required in the life of every Parliament - a redistribution, in his words, ‘before every election’. The right honourable member said that the legislation would cause gross instability of electorates and that there would be a serious lack of continuity of representation. It would be as well to remind the Leader of the Country Party as well as all honourable members that the Queensland Government, after deciding on a redistribution to take effect before the State elections in Queensland in 1972, found, due to the comments of the State Secretary of the Labor Party, that a few mistakes had been made in some of the boundaries. When the State Secretary referred to some of the seats that obviously the Country Party intended to win and suggested that by the look of things these would be seats that the Labor Party would pick up although originally they were not expected to be Labor seats, the Premier of Queensland went back and adjusted the boundaries. He had a second chop and a second redistribution within about a month. Not satisfied with having a second go before the election, as some seats such as Albert and Redlands were finally won by the Labor Party in the subsequent election he has recently announced that the State Government is likely to consider a mini redistribution of boundaries of some electorates before the next Queensland election. Not satisfied with the job he did earlier of gerrymandering the electoral boundaries in Queensland he intends to have another go at redistribution before the next election. I think that gives the lie to the suggestion of Country Party members in this place that redistributions would be required too frequently under the proposed terms of clause 3 of the Bill.

Of course, we know that there is not united condemnation of this suggestion by members of the Opposition. We know, in terms of the report which appeared in the Press last Friday, that the Liberals are split over these electoral reforms because some Liberals recognise the honesty and sincerity of the Labor Party in introducing these suggested changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) said in this House during the course of the debate last week that he is not oversatisfied with the suggestion of a 10 per cent weighting of electoral enrolments. He is no more satisfied with the 20 per cent weighting. I cannot find the exact words used by the honourable member in the debate but he suggested that he could see some justification for a change, although he thought rather in terms of an alteration to 15 per cent. I suppose it is all a matter of opinion. In his opinion, 15 per cent would be satisfactory.

I submit to honourable members that the ideal solution for this situation would be to give each electorate the same number of electors. We believe that that is not possible. We believe that it would not be practicable to provide even a 5 per cent weighting in variation of the various enrolments. But we certainly believe that we can effectively implement a fair system with a 10 per cent weighting of enrolments. Rather than criticise our intention to do this, if Country and Liberal Party members opposite had any sense of electoral justice and basic honesty in the redistribution that is about to be carried out, they would be prepared to say: ‘The Labor Party says it can conduct a redistribution on the basis of a 10 per cent variation above or below the quota. We are prepared to let the Labor Party have a go at it and see if it can conduct an effective redistribution that will not require to be changed or adjusted before each election’.

I refer once again to the State President of the Liberal Party and the remarks that he made about the last redistribution in Queensland. I am sure that his remarks on that redistribution would be a fair indication oi what he would think about suggestions in this House by Country Party members that things should be left as they are. He said:

  1. . if the Country Party’s proposal ls adopted lt will mean ‘electoral injustice at Country Party insistence’. . . .

He said that at the time of the last redistribution in Queensland. The same applies to our attitude to the proposed amendments to this Electoral Bill that we are discussing.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– Having been ruthlessly gagged last night by the new Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) I am glad to have the opportunity of .speaking at least in the Committee stage of this Bill. I understand that we are discussing clause 3. The Government proposes to repeal all of the disabilities for which the current Act provides arising out of remoteness or distance, and density or sparsity of population. The Government proposes to get rid of those. Qf course, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) made great play on what he calls the present situation in Queensland. Let me repeat to honourable members what was said by my colleague, the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), earlier this afternoon and remind the honourable member for Bowman that in earlier days and under a Labor government, Queensland had probably one of the worst gerrymanders which has ever been seen in the history of Australia and possibly of the world.

I have an article headed ‘Fraudulent Electoral Systems in Queensland’ written by T. C. Truman which states:

No serious students of Queensland politics doubt that the Electoral Districts Act of 1949 was a schema devised by the Labor Party to keep them in office despite the movement of opinion against them. And it was a successful frustration of the democratic process, for in the elections of 1950 the Liberal and Country Party team won a majority of the votes, actually 49.7 per cent, but gained only 31 of tha 75 seats, whereas Labor polled but 46.5 per cent of the votes yet managed to get 42 of the seats. Very frankly the Labor Premier Hanlon said . . . ‘I do not think that on the old redistribution we would have been too secure at all’.

What a masterpiece of understatement. Let me tell honourable members how they did it. In the metropolitan area where there were 24 seats, each seat had a quota of 10,715. Then the quota for other areas decreased until it reached what the honourable member for Fisher described as the shearers seats or, in some cases, the mining seats. There were 10 of those seats in which the quota of 4,613 was less than half of the quota applying to seats in the metropolitan area. The article continues.

Mr Hanlon, the Premier, justified this arrangement favouring the north and the west with arguments based on the vast size of outback electorates. . . .

The devil can quote scripture sometimes. It is interesting to note that a Labor Premier acknowledged that there were reasons why the more remote areas should have a smaller quota. For once, we would be on the same ground as the Labor Party. The article goes on to quote the Premier as justifying this arrangement as follows: . . with arguments based on the vast size of outback electorates, the necessity for special attention to under-developed areas and the need to avoid domination of the State by the capital city.

The person who wrote the article, which I advise all honourable members, particularly the Minister for Services and Property, to read said:

These arguments for unequal electorates and special weighting of country areas came strangely from a party that has always placed great emphasis on the equalitarian aspects of democracy.

It just shows that when there is any possibility of obtaining advantage from a rearrangement of electorates, the Australian Labor Party is in there, boots and all, and it does not matter what its policy is. Of course, that is what the Government is attempting to do in the Bill we are now discussing. No-one believes for a moment that the Government would bring forward a Bill like, this if it thought the Bill would disadvantage the Government or even if it thought the Bill would have no advantage.

A very thorough assessment of this Bill by the Liberal Party organisation showed that, on the same vote that occurred on 2nd December last year, and being most optimistic, that is, optimistic from our point of view, the redistribution we are now discussing would have increased the majority of the Australian Labor Party from 9 to 16. At the most pessimistic, again from our point of view, such a redistribution would have increased the Government’s majority from its present figure of 9 to 36. Obviously, the Government is trying to create a situation in which it would not need to get any more votes to win more seats or, perhaps, the Government wants to win the same number of seats with many less votes than it received on 2nd December.

Let me refer to another point. It should not be necessary to repeat this but, unfortu nately, some honourable members are not prepared to accept the situation. The Liberal Party assessment was the result of a thorough investigation of the Bill by the organisation of the Party and our decision to oppose this Bill strenuously was taken as a result of that assessment. Our decision was not taken as a result of any division between the Liberal and Country parties or anything like that. People love to put over that story. The only reason the Liberal Party has adopted the stand that it has is that it believes the present system is fair and that the system being put forward by the Labor Party would be unfair. At present there is no doubt that, with one exception in the last 25 years or more, the Party which received the majority of votes became the Government. We have only to look at the result of the last election where the Labor Party received 49.7 per cent of the vote and won 53.6 per cent of the electorate. That is a fair system.

The proposed system of the Labor Party is only the first of 2 steps. Let us realise that this measure is setting things up sq that the Government can then appoint the Distribution Commissioners. . One would not need to stretch things too far. to say that the new. Commissioners will not come from the Adelaide Club or the Melbourne Club. I . would think that the ones who are. not named certainly will not have pro-Liberal sympathies. But of course, that is the second step. The Government would have a redistribution and create a situation in which the Labor Party, with the same number of votes that it received at the last election, would win a vastly increased majority.

I believe we should include disabilities for remoteness or distance, and density or sparsity of population. Every honourable member who represents a country seat realises the problems of a country seat. Mine is not a large country seat when it is compared with some of the enormous seats such as Kalgoorlie. The electorate of Kalgoorlie represents 92 per cent of Western Australia. Yet, the Government is saying that this area should be larger. The same applies to the electorate of Darling. I suppose that Darling comprises one-third or one-half of New South Wales, but the Labor Party says that that is not enough. The honourable member ought to look after more. In the electorate of Darling there are 45,000 electors. To bring that figure up to the 60,000 quota one would have to me by the. Chief Electoral Officer. They will take 15,000 electors from Riverina. Then of course Riverina would go down to 30,000 and that would mean taking another 30,000 from my electorate or from Hume. So it goes on. The only reason why this is being done is that Labor wins very few country seats and wants to get rid of as many country seats as possible. I think, on a rough estimate, Labor won 12 out of about 44 seats that could be called country seats. Of course, if there are fewer of these there are fewer that Labor loses. What the Government wants to do is so to distribute the electorates that the big majorities in the metropolitan areas are reduced and some of that vote is moved out in order to make what was a marginal seat a strong Labor seat. It is not very hard to see through these proposals.

No-one disagrees with the slogan of one man one vote, but what this really means is that in a democracy the government should be won by the party which obtains a majority of votes. This is What happens now. As I have mentioned, there has been only one occasion when it did not happen and that was on a redistribution which was carried out by the Labor Party. As the Minister said, the results must reflect the will of the majority. The Minister quoted a judgment in the United States of America. But let us realise that there are vast differences in all democracies from the largest to the smallest. We are told that in France there is a very considerable variation in the size of electorates. There may be as few as 25,000 in one seat and as many as 150,000 in another seat. This occurs also in Great Britain, the United States and almost any other country one could mention. The Minister was given the job of perpetuating the Labor Party in office, and this is the way he intends to do it. Naturally, none of us on this side supports what he intends to do.

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

– The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) said that he was ruthlessly gagged last night. If the speech we. heard from him this afternoon was no better than the one he proposed to make last night, we did not miss much. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) mentioned that he also was ruthlessly gagged last night. The ghost of his father appeared in his speech today. I could not help thinking that they must have coalesced some way and discussed it, because it was precisely the same speech that his father made here in days gone by, depending to the last drop on the right of the Country Party for special consideration because it cannot obtain votes from the Australian people. It was said that this debate was gagged last night. It was gagged because honourable members opposite set out deliberately to stop me replying to the charges that had been made against the Government. A Country Party member took up 20 or 30 minutes of the time, of the House when other honourable members could have been speaking.

But honourable members are very privileged. They have a democratic government now and they are speaking in committee, which was rarely, if ever, the case in the last Parliament. I want to clear up a few misconceptions about the Bill. We are discussing the very crux of the Bill - the changes that have been made to section 19. Statements have been made already in the Committee stage that cannot be supported by fact. A few moments ago the honourable member for Farrer said that only once since 1949 has the party that obtained the majority of the votes not won the election. That statement repeated by many honourable members in the course of this debate is completely and utterly false, and I shall show it. The facts are that in 1954 the Australian Labor Party won 50.1 per cent of the votes and gained 56 seats. The LiberalCountry Party with 47 per cent of the votes gained 58 seats. In 1961 the Labor Party gained 46.76 per cent of the votes and won 62 seats.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. For how long is the Minister allowed to mislead the Parliament? He knows full well that the 1954 election was fought on a redistribution which was introduced by a Labor government.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) - Order! That is a frivolous and vexatious point. It is not a valid point of order.

Mr DALY:

– Do not worry, Mr Deputy Chairman. The honourable member is trying to fight his way back to the Ministry. In 1961 the Labor Party won 46.76 per cent of the votes and gained 62 seats. The Liberal-Country Party won 40.91 per sent of the votes and gained the same number of seats. In 1969 the Labor Party won 46.95 per cent of the votes and gained 59 seats whereas the Liberal-Country Party with 43.33 per cent of the votes gained 66 seats. They are authentic figures given to me by the Chief Electoral Officer. They will lay to rest for all time the statements made by honourable members opposite that the majority vote elects the government in this country.

Honourable members have spoken about a lot of things in the course of this debate. One honourable member is on record as saying that he objected to the redistribution in Queensland but it was changed to suit him. I liked his delivery but the content of his speech does not bear scrutiny. Is that the kind of redistribution that the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Eric Robinson) thinks was an improvement? In Queensland in the last State election the Country Party with 20 per cent of the vote won 26 seats and the Liberal Party with 22 per cent of the votes won 21 seats. The honourable member for McPherson changed things and made it better for everybody. The Labor Party with 47 per cent of the votes, more than the combined total of the other 2 parties, won 33 seats. The minority party in Queensland - the Country Party, which supplies the Premier - with the lowest percentage of votes exercises supreme control in that bastion of Country Party democracy with the help of the greatest gerrymander in the world.

It has been said that the Labor Party is seeking to consolidate itself. There is no need for that. There is massive support for the Labor Party from one end of this country to the other. Criticism has been levelled at the Government for adopting the suggestion of the Constitutional Review Committee for a 10 per cent variation. It is not possible for the numbers to be exactly equal but they should be as near as practicable to that ideal. Two members of the Country Party, the late Mr Drummond and Len Hamilton from Western Australia, sat on that Constitutional Review Committee. The members of that Committee uniformly supported a margin of not more than 10 per cent. So let honourable members who sit in the corner answer that one. There is nothing new about 20 per cent or 10 per cent.

Let us look at the other States. In New South Wales under the Liberal-Country Party Government there is a IS per cent margin. So that Government is evidently not in agreement with honourable members opposite. In Victoria - one cannot say that that is a really democratic State - the margin is down to 10 per cent. In Queensland it is 20 per cent but may be departed from to a greater extent than 20 per cent in the northern zone. No wonder they want the 20 per cent. In South Australia it is 10 per cent in the metropolitan area and 15 per cent in the country. In Western Australia it is 10 per cent. So what is new about this suggestion? One would think it was a revolutionary proposal. Those people who tend towards democracy agree that this is something that should be done. Therefore, those who support a margin of 20 per cent and the removal of these barriers, which count trees, acres, horses and cows instead oi people, subscribe to a system of political gerrymandering that has no place in any democratic institution.

Country Party members have said that they are being attacked and that my speech was political. What a shocking thing to say about me. The fact of the matter is that none of them heard the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in his heyday as Minister for Social Services. I would be a babe in the woods compared with him. We always know when the citadel of the Country Party is being assailed. There is always trouble when the redistribution of boundaries is mentioned. Any party with falling support and falling numbers cannot survive unless it can rig things, constitutionally if possible. Who will ever forget the unforgettable occasion in this Parliament on 1st April 1971 when the former Minister for the Army, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), describing the Queensland Liberals who crossed the floor used these words:

This is exactly my point. If the principle of one vote one value is introduced any member of the Opposition who has the guts can say ‘you vote your way, I will be like the 8 traitors who walked across the floor of the Queensland Parliament 2 days ago and who betrayed the interests of the people who live in rural areas in Queensland’.

He was not talking of Labor members; they were his blood brothers in the Liberal Party. What a dreadful thing to say about one’s colleagues. That shows how the Country Party reacts when anything like boundaries is mentioned. Listen to this report in a Queensland newspaper about Mr Hinze, the Country Party member for the Gold Coast:

There was an uproar as the House divided. Mr Hinze Country Party (Gold Coast) had to be restrained by Government members as he rose from his seat, waved his arms and angrily shouted at the 8 rebel Liberals. He shouted ‘Mongrels, mongrels’-

What a dreadful thing to say. This man is one of the people who tell you that they believe in democracy. Mentioning electoral boundaries to the supporters of gerrymanders in the Country Party is like putting your hand in their pocket and taking out any money you can find. They will fight to the last.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– You are not on the air.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member for Wannon, who is sitting at the table, warbles away now and then, but he will get his chance, so I will not deal with him at this stage. The Country Party resists electoral reform because it can exist only through unequal electoral representation. The Leader of the Australian Country Party is on record on 26th May 1965, when he was the Minister for the Interior, as having said:

The population of a division includes the children, migrants and everybody in the area.

Whom would he think it includes? Does he think it includes sheep, cattle and things of that nature? Of course it does not, and the Labor Party subscribes to the belief that it Joes not. Throughout this debate, particularly on the question of one vote one value, the silly argument has been raised about the constitutional position in the Senate. It has been said that the same number of senators represent Tasmania Queensland and the other States and that they do not represent equal numbers of people. Of course they do not, for the simple reason that our constitutional fathers made lt practically impossible to change the system that they established and they could never have achieved federation unless that system came about. That argument is one of the weakest I have heard, and I doubt that any party in this nation could change the Senate system of representation because I could not see Tasmanians of any political ilk voting to reduce their representation or to increase the representation of New South Wales or Queensland. It has been said that that argument basically supports the propositions put forward by honourable members opposite, but it is an argument that would not bear investigation.

Honourable members opposite said that there is no need to change the system in respect of area and that kind of thing. They mentioned the terrific strains imposed on members representing country electors. They certainly have a lot to put up with, but the people who are represented by the Country Party put up with a lot more. Honourable members opposite do not even know the area of electorates.

Mine was said to have an area, I think of 3.95 square miles. For the benefit of everybody it is Bi square miles, and I will tell the Committee what it has in it. It has people - about 125,000. That is different from the electorate of one member of the Australian Country Party which contains 60,000 or 70,000 people. The country member certainly has disadvantages, and they have been aggravated for years by the Government that the Country Party supported in this Parliament. But there is no cause in a democracy to pervert the course of justice because a government does not give members adequate facilities to represent the people by whom they are sent to this Parliament to state a case.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– You have not done anything about that.

Mr DALY:

– I do not take a lot of notice of the honourable member for Wannon, because he sat in government for so long that he forgot what a backbencher had to do. We are told that under the proposed new system a redistribution will be required every 3 years. That argument is not logical. Redistribution normally takes place after a census, which I think is conducted every 5 years or more. If only the last Government had not been afraid of the result of a redistribution in Western Australia, Western Australia would have had an extra seat immediately after the last census. The fact of the matter is that the former Government feared the creation of another electorate in that State. It delayed a decision on the matter for so long that now it is urgent and necessary that we give effect to this legislation in order that Western Australia at least may get the seat to which it is entitled.

Let me put honourable members right. Honourable members opposite say that a redistribution can be held only when certain seats are out of focus. That of course is one reason for a redistribution, but big changes are taking place in this country. As honourable members know 750,000 18-year-olds are now eligible to go on the roll and there will be half a million more such voters by the next election. If the Governor-General thinks it is fit, even under the existing legislation those additional electors in themselves will necessitate a redistribution to be held.

I do not wish to take up further time at this stage of the debate, but I will be speaking later this evening. I do not want lectures from the honourable member for Wannon or the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes).

The honourable member for Barker comes from the State in which Sir Thomas Playford did not have a redistribution for 25 years and in which one vote in the country was worth 6 in the city. If I want to know anything about gerrymanders I will look for the honourable member for Barker, because I reckon he could put us on the beam. If I wanted somebody else I would make a beeline to Queensland and have a yarn with the Premier, because he would bring me right up to date. If I wanted to indicate in this Parliament the party that has existed on professional and political gerrymanders, constitutionally applied, I would look straight at the Country Party and know that I was 100 per cent right.

I shall finish in a few moments, but I just thought I would put the record straight in respect of these matters. As I say, in New Zealand a variation of 5 per cent from the quota is allowed. Now it is regarded here as revolutionary when we change a few things to bring more democracy to the country areas. Members of the Liberal Party say that they believe in the principle of one vote one value, but they are like they were in government. They could say what they liked as long as they did not vote for it. The Liberal Party says that it subscribes to the principle of one vote one value but will not vote for it. Its coalition partner with a glorious display of unity said: ‘It is just impossible. Have nothing to do with it.’ So how could we ever win. If we made all electorates equal in size or made the permissible variation from the quota 40 per cent we would find that there would be some difference on the other side in respect of it.

The real opposition to this Bill comes from the Country Party. I excuse the Liberal Party because it has to survive with somebody. It cannot do it on its own so it just tags along. But let me warn the Country Party. Electoral inequality is its lifeblood politically. It cannot exist without boundaries being constitutionally gerrymandered and it cannot exist without the Bjelke-Petersens and others giving effect to policies which we are trying to refute in this Parliament but in relation to which our efforts are being opposed by those who sit opposite. I hope that this Bill will be carried and that in due course those in another place will pass judgment on it and in due course the people will pass judgment on them. These things want to be carefully pondered ere honourable members opposite rush wildly into rejecting this legislation, which is vital in any democracy.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– I rise to speak against this Bill and in particular to speak against clause 3 of it. A rural society, because of its minuteness, particularly in relation to voting strength, but because of its strength in relation to the economy and its effect on the rest of the Australian community, has to be protected from under-representation. Our sparsely populated areas must be protected from centralisation of political control as well. The needs pf our country people, who include not only those on the land but the people and the workers in our country towns and provincial cities have needs and opinions which can be expressed only in Parliament through the voice of their chosen representative, to whatever party he belongs. This rural voice is only as strong as the numerical strength of its representation in the Parliament. The Australian Country Party is the only political party created exclusively for the purpose primarily of seeing that those in the outback, those engaged in the . rural industries and those engaged in the valuable export industries have this parliamentary expression. <

The’ Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who is responsible for the introduction of this Bill which relates to the distribution of the States into electoral divisions, has stated that under the Commonwealth Electoral Act Western Australia is in need of a further seat. We agree, but it is’ also the only State that at this stage requires an alteration in the electoral boundaries. I. suggest that the last election was significant for the lack of support by country people for this Government, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that at this stage support for this’ Government must be at an all time low in rural areas. Hence the desire of the Australian Labor Party ro attempt to consolidate its position by electoral alterations.

It is not and must not be accepted that the Australian Country Party will, as a result of sarcasm, criticism or abuse, be a party to a redistribution or any other alteration to our electoral laws which will deprive those people living in country areas of their rights. We are justified in rejecting this Bill on the principle that the remoteness and distance of country areas from the centres of administration disadvantage representation and the fact that relatively bad communication facilities show no signs of any continual improvement under this Government are real reasons for retaining our present electoral system. The sections of the legislation relating to remoteness and unanimity of interests are vital to future adequate and equal representation. The way the supporters of this Bill speak in debate leads us to believe that our electoral system brings into conflict rural and urban interests, that there is a division and will be a division between rural and urban people. I can only say, and I can be certain of this, that the implementation of this legislation will create such a division.

The Australian Country Party thinks of people in no such way. In the long run real democratic government, real equality of representation or real equality in the value of votes is achieved only by ensuring that all members of this Parliament have an equal opportunity to represent the people in their electorates. There are fewer people in country areas in comparison with city areas, but they are producing more and are performing valu-able functions and must keep performing these functions if this nation is to remain healthy. In terms of human political values and because of their efficiency their voice is diminishing. More than 60 per cent of Australia’s exports flow from rural Australia. It is plainly in the national interest to see that this is sustained. It can be sustained in a political democracy only as long as there is a voice to represent country people and as long as this voice has some numbers behind it to render it effectual.

All rural members of Parliament in this House, irrespective of Party loyalty or affiliation, must surely recognise the basic fact that people cannot be seen in terms of a mathematical formula. Legislators can only truly represent their interests, whether social, political or economic, by having a voice to speak for them. Surely the problems of size, of communication and of geography, which affect the ability of a member of Parliament to confer with his electorate, are obvious even to any person who has never been outside a city. Yet the proposal of the Labor Party is to increase even further the size and, simultaneously, the problems caused by this very factor. Will the Government and the likeable, yet comical, Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) next suggest that country people, because of their population, can also make do with fewer churches, schools, telephones or postal services?

If examples are to be taken as any guide, numerous examples can be produced to prove that our system not only is one of the most notable for electoral equality but is also one of the world’s best in most other aspects. What people really want is good and balanced representation. Good representation where a Federal member looks outside his city office and sees the rooftops of all his constituents in a compact area is quite different from good representation of constituents by a Federal member of Parliament Who comes from a rural area made up of farmers and small towns, with their many interests, backgrounds, economic problems and diversities. When the Country Party attempts to do something tangible about these difficulties by recognising and catering for them, Labor screams ‘gerrymander’ and insists that the Country Party is manipulating on behalf of its own interests and not in an attempt to help those rural citizens, three-fifths of whom are represented in this Parliament by members other than Country Party members of Parliament.

An exact equality of electors in every electorate cannot be achieved and therefore a reasonable variation has to be allowed if redistributions are not to become an annual event. At present the average overall margin of allowance of our 41 rural seats is below 10 per cent, yet these are the seats under challenge and under discussion. This raises the real question of why any alteration of electoral boundaries is being attempted. Surely this Labor Government has sufficient confidence in its policies and in its abilities to believe that it can attract enough support from the Australian people without having to attempt to assure political immunity to boundary alterations. This is the first time for 2 decades that the Australian Labor Party has had the policies to attract a sufficient majority of people. Our democratic system allowed it to be voted into office. The essential part of our democratic system is that it does allow any Party, large or small, any organisation or any individual to run for parliamentary office and have some confidence in the result. Any dramatic alteration of our electoral laws, as proposed here, will not alter the vital composition of this place as regards ideology or philosophy, but democracy will be threatened in that it will make for the tyranny of a 2-party system.

The percentage number of votes polled in any election in relation to the number of seats held is a useless and unsound comparison. Such a percentage looks good or bad depending on the number of ultra-safe seats held by any Party or vice versa and naturally also on the number of seats contested. It is most decidedly a challenge to those who sit in this place to stand up and be counted on whether Australia is to have continued democratic rule and opportunity or whether the will of any one Party is to dominate our legislature. The great responsibility of Government and of this Parliament is for all people to be truly represented not only in number but also by the views and the needs of all people living in metropolitan and rural areas. 1 ask the Committee to vote against the Bill.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

– I support clause 3 of this Bill. It is unjust to uphold an electoral system which is biased either for or against any section or area of electors. It is the intention of the Opposition to perpetuate that injustice with an argument based on rural weightage. Clause 3 sets out to remove that injustice. Rural weightage is a bias against urban Australians and has acted against urban dwellers who have formed the majority of this country for more than 50 years. Let us examine the main argument for rural weightage. The Opposition asserts that unless we have small rural seats it will be impossible for members to service or interview their electors. However most electors write or telephone their member of Parliament. The request for a personal interview on some matter is infrequent. Most requests are those that are best filled by the member acting as an ombudsman or by a regional ombudsman. Most of these activities are completed by telephone, telegram or letter or by personal interviews with the Minister or government departments. The aim of the Country Party in this debate is to confuse electoral service with parliamentary representation. I remind that Party that we are debating an Electoral Bill not a services and property Bill. Moreover the incidence of problems encountered by the member is not directly related to the number of voters in an electorate but to the social environment that produces these problems and to the alternative avenues of redress open to the electorate - a mixture of lobbying power and wealth.

What electorates provide most of these ombudsman-type activities? It should be obvious that the most densely populated areas will provide the most work. The most disadvantaged areas, as measured by lower socioeconomic groupings, are precisely those less likely to have alternative channels of representation or redress. These areas are the electorates with higher percentages of migrant population, greater incidence of poverty and higher than average levels of pensioners or oneparent families. Members of this House do not represent only those electors who voted for them or even just the electors; they also represent those who do not have the vote those migrants who have elected not to take out Australian citizenship and the thousands of children too young to vote. Would any honourable member deny them representation? Where are these people more likely to live? Not in the country but in the city and rural-urban electorates - in places like Mount Druitt, in the electorate of Chifley, where 70 per cent are under 14 years and in my own electorate of La Trobe, which covers more than 1,000 square miles, with the second largest voting population in Victoria and with a fair percentage of migrants and an above average population of pensioners and one-parent families. It has 2 people for every one on the electoral roll. I represent twice as many people as the number of voters would indicate. The Melbourne electorate is worse off. There, 2 voters represent 5 people. But in the rural electorates - for instance, Corangamite or Wimmera - each 3 voters represent only 5 people. This scale must surely undermine, if not completely destroy, the argument that country electorates should be smaller in numbers of voters than other electorates.

Examine any of the arguments used to support rural weightage and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it benefits the Liberal and Country parties - the parties that represent the better off and the best lobbied interests. It is not an exaggeration to say that under the present Act these interests are overrepresented. Furthermore this Parliament does not represent land areas; it represents people - not places but faces. Is it any wonder that the nomination of the Country Party for a new national anthem has as its first line: Gwydir still yet Gwydir’? The way to guarantee that the people are equally serviced by being equally represented is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and facilities available to the member to carry out his duties - more facilities and backup personnel rather than more dollars or voting power to the individual member.

There is no case for preserving those iniquitous factors contained in section 19 (2) of the Act which the Distribution Commissioners are required to observe. These are factors based on remoteness, sparsity of population and the area of the electorate. Factors that allow a party which gains 8 per cent of the votes to enjoy 16 per cent of the parliamentary representation have no place in an Electoral Act that should enshrine the basic democratic principle of one vote one value. Clause 3 of this Bill attempts to maximise that principle. To persevere with an electoral distribution which denies the voters the right of determining which people or parties represent them in Parliament is a denial of democratic practice.

The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 certainly saw it in this way for it regarded a tolerance for certain electorates of 10 per cent above or below the quota as sufficient to do justice to rural interests. The Committee also considered that the device of creating substantial disparities in the number of enrolled voters and so securing for a political party greater representation than it should have is, to quote the words of the Committee, ‘in all its forms thoroughly subversive of the democratic process’.

The amendments made to the Electoral Act in 1965 showed that the Country Party was prepared to ride rough shod over democracy to ensure its political survival. The loading of 20 per cent was the price at which its coalition partners, the Liberal Party, valued democracy in bowing to this demand. Yet, with this contribution to history behind it, the Opposition during this debate has declared that it does not reject the concept of one vote one value. What hypocrisy! The Opposition’s defence is that there is no time at which that can be achieved in all its pristine purity. So rather than work towards its stated objective it prefers to reject the whole objective. Either it believes in one vote one value or it does not. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. One vote one value means, logically enough, that areas or boundaries be drawn to ensure that each voter in an electorate has as much influence as any other voter in that or any other electorate.

Of course, with a growing and mobile population it would be impossible to achieve this at any single point in time. For practicality it is necessary to set a tolerance, the maximum of which will be a compromise between the ideal of exact equality and that variation which can be rightly charged as weightage in favour of an electorate or electorates. Under the existing legislation the maximum figure is 20 per cent above or below the quota. The Country Party acknowledges this as a weighted figure, for its whole argument rests upon it. But there are no factors which overshadow the argument for one vote one value. There must be a compromise and accordingly this clause provides for a 10 per cent variation. This allows a variation between the smallest and the largest electorate of 20 per cent. The Act at present allows a 40 per cent differential. Any greater variation than 20 per cent would be in conflict with the constitutional requirement common to both Australia and the United States of America that members of the House of Representatives should be elected by the people. This does not mean they should be elected by privileged groups or privileged paddocks but by the people.

Realising the contradiction in its argument, the Opposition falls back on the spurious argument that with a tolerance of only 10 per cent above or below the quota we would be causing a frequency of redistribution that would undermine the work of the Distribution Commissioners. A changing and growing population is not an argument against more frequent distribution but an argument in favour of it. In any event, redistributions will be held only after each census. How else would the Commissioners accurately measure changes in population? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) would rather cloud the issue and allow one electorate to be twice as large as another than speak in defence of the principle of one vote one value, the most basic principle of democracy.

The Westminster system of government is meant to be both representative and responsible. Not only must this Parliament be representative by observing equal electorate representation so that urban, country and fringe areas are represented equally, and so that socioeconomic groupings are represented equally, but it must guarantee that as far as practicable one man’s vote is equal to the vote of any other man, no matter where he lives. To be responsible means that the Government must receive the majority of votes cast by the people and a change in electoral support must be reflected by a change of parliamentary support. This sensitivity can be preserved only when the voting system and electoral boundaries express the principle of one vote one value. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) gave his usual speech of cajolery and abuse of honourable members on this side of the chamber. He is a person who, in his present office, enjoys gagging debates in the chamber as much as possible. The Minister indicated a few moments ago that he was thinking of doing so with respect to the debate on this Bill. He was just, and is always fond of talking about numbers and bow he proposes to use them. Of course, it is numbers that this Bill is all about. I want to say, before getting on to the contents of clause 3 of the Bill, that the Minister for Services and Property, who takes great delight in stopping free speech in this chamber, never misses an opportunity to make a speech on any subject whenever he feels so inclined.

Clause 3 has as its main ingredient a phrase which reads: ‘but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less’. That, of course, is an attempt by the Minister and this Government to gerrymander the electoral system of this country by reducing the variance that can be made in the quota in providing numbers for electorates. We have heard from supporters of the Government during the time that this Bill has been debated an attempt to reconcile their slogan of ‘one vote one value’ with the fact that this Bill provides for a 10 per cent variation. The legislation which this Bill seeks to amend has provided for a 20 per cent variation since 1902 or 1903, which is a long time. Since that time the present variation has been recognised as being a fair one.

It has been somewhat amusing for one to sit on this side of the chamber, to listen to supporters of the Government - I am looking at one honourable member in particular, but there were many others - and to try to reconcile the principle of one vote one value with the Government’s desire in this Bill to reduce the variation from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. It is perfectly obvious that there is no prin ciple involved in this matter but that there is only a desire; and that desire is to redraw the electoral boundaries of this country to the advantage of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister for Services and Property, when talking about the principle of one vote one value, said that ‘on this question’ that is what the Bill provides. Of course it does not. It provides for a 10 per cent variation, not for no variation. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb) said that the Bill seeks to maximise the principle. That was a ridiculous comment. One honourable member - I think it is the one at whom I am looking at the moment - said something to the effect that this Bill was a big step along the way toward the principle of achieving the principle of one vote one value. It is patently obvious that the difference between 10 per cent and 20 per cent is no difference in principle.

If the Government were to remove the variation altogether it could argue validly that a principle was involved. But it has not sought to do that. It has not sought to do so for a very good reason. Some of that good reason was mentioned by the Minister. Let me remind the Committee that some of it was also mentioned in the expert advice given to the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review which brought down a report in 1959. Many Government supporters have mentioned that report. They have said that the Committee came down in favour of a 10 per cent variation. It was unfair of them not to mention that the Committee came down with such a report despite the advice of experts that it should recommend a 20 per cent variation. There can be no denying that an examination of the report and the Committee’s proceedings will bear out that point

In the few minutes available to me - unlike the unlimited time available to the Minister for Services and Property - I want to take up some of the comments that were made by the Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, when the debate on this Bill was resumed on 29th March. It is with a little reluctance that I criticise his speech. But the assertions he made in relation to the electoral system of Western Australia and its relationship to the Commonwealth Act were just so far out that I invite honourable members to consider how genuine he was in what he had to say. The Minister for Education made some comments about the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) to the voting qualifications in

Western Australia. I presume that he was speaking of the past in referring to property qualifications in respect to the Upper House in Western Australia. One need only assert that there is a universal franchise there at present and that there has been for some years. It was introduced by a Liberal-Country Party coalition government and accepted without any dissent whatsoever by the Australian Labor Party. Because a constitutional amendment was involved it was not just a question of the proposition put forward being passed on the voices. A vote had to be taken.

The Minister for Education drew a distinction between the malapportionment of electorates and gerrymandering. The Minister for Services and Property is busily talking to someone just now because he cannot, bear to be criticised and he said that what the Opposition had done as a government was to gerrymander. Let me quote what the Minister for Education had to say. I pay him all credit here. He said:

I do not believe that the Liberal Party favours gerrymandering.

So much for the Minister for Services and Property.

The Minister for Education went on and made an extraordinary statement. He said:

At the last State election in Western Australia the Liberal Party won 29.3 per cent of the vote, the Australian Country Party won 5 per cent of the vote and with 34.3 per cent of the vote between them, naturally they lost the election by only one seat. It was the greatest shock that I ever had because I did not believe that they could ever lose the election.

This is a completely invalid argument because the Liberal Party and the Country Party did not contest all the seats in Western Australia. Partly because the Liberal Party was at that time in government in coalition with the Country Party, naturally it did not oppose at the election the Ministers of its coalition partner. I have not bad time to check on the absolute numbers, but it would appear from a glance that something like 14 Lower House electorates were not contested. I understand that the Labor Party contested almost all if not all seats. To take out figures only on the contested electorates and to build an argument on them is completely false. It was not only misleading but also, I am drawn to the conclusion, intended to be misleading. The Minister for Education went on to say: the Country Party in Western Australia maintains the situation in which Lyla Elliott represents 80,000 people on the roll in the Upper House. You could get a line up of 8 Country Party seats to equal it.

In other words, the Minister was comparing the number of electors on the roll of an Upper House seat with the number of electors on the roll of eight Lower House seats under a distribution for the Upper House agreed to without dissent by the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia. The Minister went on to say:

In the Westminster system where there will be monopoly of power for that side which has the majority of seats, there is a very clear moral obligation to ensure, so far as it is humanly possible, that the side which has the majority of seats has had the majority of votes.

That is fair enough, but the Minister then went on to talk about property qualifications. My colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) interjected and said that that was not an issue. He was quite right. There is no property consideration in issue here. The Minister then got a bit wild, as is his want, I am afraid, and said:

If a country goes long enough in ensuring that its Parliament is unrepresentative, the issues go to the streets.

Later on he said:

If we make Parliament unrepresentative, sooner or later the issues will go to the streets.

We are talking about a difference of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. Surely it is a bit wild of the Minister for Education to try to show that this is unrepresentative and could go to the streets. The fact of the matter is this 20 per cent variation has been in the Act since 1902. The Labor Party believes that it will be to its advantage to change the variation to 10 per cent. I believe on examination, and I have given the matter very careful consideration, that remoteness and size should be factors supporting a greater percentage variation. I believe that 20 per cent is a reasonable variation. That is the reason why I oppose the Bill.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– In speaking to clause 3 of this Bill. I am rather amazed at the attitude of the Liberal Party which for so long has said that it believes in democracy and used other words which tend to mean the same thing, f am amazed that it has not seized the opportunity presented by the introduction of this Bill to put a few teeth into its sentiments. 1 am amazed that it is letting the albatross of the Country Party hang around its neck yet again. The Country Party is entitled to representation. I have lived and worked in country areas. I admire country people. But, when it comes to a question of who is to represent whom in the national Parliament, country people are entitled only to the representation which they can earn. That means one vote one value. One can talk all one likes about whether the margin should be 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent or whatever one likes, but as nearly as possible - this Bill and this clause point in the right direction - representation should be on the basis of one vote one value.

I am amazed that the Country Party thinks that the people of Australia, let alone this national Parliament, will believe that Country Party members should enjoy more advantage than anyone else in Australia enjoys. When we talk about whether the margin should be 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent, we should consider the size of electorates. I have a table which shows that, of the 125 electorates for this national Parliament, 61 have areas of from 5 to 150 square miles, 10 have areas of from 150 to 500 square miles and 5 have areas of from 500 to 1,000 square miles. The table continues in a fairly even progression to electorates with areas of from 10,000 to 15,000 square miles. There are 14 electorates in that category. Then there are electorates with areas of 200,000 square miles and more. The electorates of the Northern Territory and Kalgoorlie, in Western Australia, have areas in excess of 500,000 square miles. How on earth can one relate these figures to the difficulty caused by the area and remoteness of electorates from one electorate to another? In that sort of context it is quite impossible.

If we are to try to make it easier for honourable members to represent electorates of large dimensions, we ought to have better ways of doing it. One of the interesting things about this argument is that in a State such as Victoria, which compared with the rest of this continent is fairly well populated, the same sorts of arguments are used in the State Parliament in discussions of the size of electorates and whether a smaller number of voters should be permitted in country electorates than in metropolitan electorates. The difference between the size of a country electorate for the Victorian Parliament and that of a country electorate for this national Parliament is so great that it bears no comparison whatever. The main differences in area when electorates are compared is not between the metropolitan electorates and the country electorates but between some country electorates and other country electorates.

Mr Corbett:

– Whose fault is that?

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– It is not the fault of anybody, except if people such as the honourable member say that there should be a weighting in the number of voters in country areas. The electorate of Darling - to pick a Labor seat - which is predominantly a country area, has an area of about 132,000 square miles. Even if the weighting of that electorate was such that the number of electors was only 50 per cent of what it is, there would still be no comparison between its area, which would be about 66,000 square miles, and that of the largest electorate in Victoria, Mallee, which is approximately 20,000 square miles. So there is no comparison on this basis. Of course, what the Country Party, unfortunately supported by the Liberal Party on this occasion, is trying to do is to preserve electoral advantage. It may be called malapportionment, which I suppose it is, or it may be called gerrymandering. But, no matter what it is called, the effect is the same. Certain areas and certain people, because of the area in which they live, are advantaged to the disadvantage of other people. Eventually that sort of system brings a national Parliament or a State Parliament into disrepute. It makes people frustrated with the system which we call democracy and which most of us in this place - I hope, all of us - uphold.

I know that I have no real hope of convincing honourable members on the other side of the chamber, but I really hope that in the future they will give a little more consideration to these points. I particularly hope that the Liberal Party will give a little more consideration to them. The Australian people should have their say. They should not be stopped from having their say by a malapportionment of electorates. 1 should like to refer to a document which indicates the sort of action which has been taken by the United States Supreme Court on this question of whether an electorate should be above or below a quota. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a new redistricting plan but allowed its use for the 1966 election. The Court said that population variations of 8.7 per cent above the average and 7.3 per cent below it were still too large. In the United States it was held that every person’s vote should as nearly as practicable have the same value and the same weighting. We should be trying to achieve this in Australia.

Two principal jobs have to be performed by a member of Parliament. One is his constituency work. I believe that in larger areas - I hope I have shown conclusively that there is so much variation in the sizes of country electorates that there can be no real model for a large country area - some assistance should be given to honourable members if they can show that they have some disadvantage in representing people in their constituency work. The other main job of a member of Parliament is the making of national policy. This, of course, is what the whole question is all about. The Country Party and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Party are opposing this legislation. I do not really believe that such opposition is ultimately in the best interests of the Liberal Party, and I believe that many members of the Liberal Party really think it is not. It is in the interests of the groups which have an advantage in the weighting of electorates and the value of votes to keep the present system. But this does not mean that the Parliament should agree to keep the present system. I would be just as opposed to the present system if the Labor Party were trying to introduce it.

Spokesmen from the other side of the chamber have said that the Government is trying to gerrymander the electorates. This accusation will not wash because nobody will believe it. I believe that if we are forced to put this issue to the Australian people they will realise what the true situation is and will realise that in order to change it they will need to re-elect a Labor government, if the matter goes that far. I, for one, will support that proposition.

Mr Corbett:

– You are taking a risk.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– I do not think we would be taking any risk. In Victoria at the election in 1952, with the biggest swing to the Labor Party that ever occurred, the main issue was electoral reform. I ask this House to agree to this clause and to carry the Bill because I believe that the measure will be to the ultimate advantage of the Australian people and democracy in this country.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– In considering this Bill and more particularly clause 3 we have to ask ourselves what are the essential features of a democratic and equitable electoral system. I think most people would agree that the first requirement in any election is that the Party or Parties which get the majority of the votes should form the government. Let us see how this present system stands up to that criterion. The Minister for Services and Property quoted the results of several elections with the object of showing that although the Australian Labor Party vote had exceeded the Liberal-Country Party vote on more than one occasion this had not resulted in the formation of an ALP government. What he forgot to quote, of course, was the total percentage of votes from all the non-Labor parties. For example, I would not imagine that the Minister, despite his wide circle of friends, would include the Australian Democratic Labor Party amongst his and the Australian Labor Party’s most fervent supporters.

To get a true reflection of electoral opinion all non-Labor votes must be taken into account and only in 1954, as has been said on more than one occasion in this debate, under an electoral redistribution done by the Labor Government in 1948 has a situation arisen where the . majority of the votes cast did not result in that Party forming the government. A further confirmation of the equity of the present system can be found by comparing the percentage of votes cast with the percentage of seats won. At the last election, held in December last year under a system which this Government alleges was heavily biased against the ALP, the Labor Party got 49.9 per cent of the votes but won 53.6 per cent of the seats. So there is no question that the present system is not consistent with democratic principles.

The present form of electoral distribution results in equity as between the various sections of the community. Taking New South Wales as an example, 17 extra-metropolitan seats averaged 51,475 formal votes whilst 28 metropolitan averaged 54,709. Remembering that Australia has a rapidly growing population, the question must be asked whether it would be possible to obtain anything fairer than that. The plain fact is that one vote one value is merely a catch cry. It is impossible to achieve in practice, even for one day let alone a period of years. The Government has used this emotional slogan to cover up the fact that the intended amendment to the Electoral Act is highly favourable to it. It is ridiculous to suppose that there is any other reason for the Government’s proposal.

What would be the results of a redistribution under this Bill, and more particularly clause 3? The first and foremost result would be reduced country representation. This Government came to office without the need to win country seats. Now country areas are starting to pay the price for that. It is astonishing to me that honourable members such as the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) could support legislation which is totally opposed to the interests of their constituents. How are they going to explain away to their electors the fact that they supported and in fact helped, to draw up this legislation which specifically is designed to reduce the effectiveness of country representation? There is no doubt about the Government’s intention. One has only to study the Minister’s second reading speech to realise his total unconcern for the special problems faced by country members and their constituents.

Mr Daly:

– I am a country boy.

Mr STREET:

– If that is so, then I wish the honourable member had more understanding of country problems. Another feature of the Government’s proposal is that redistribution would be required at much more frequent intervals and all honourable members will be aware of the great practical difficulties associated with frequent redistributions. It would become impossible to have continuity of representation, whatever Party happens to be in power. Finally, what sort of country do we want in Australia? The answer to this question is critical because it will largely influence our thinking on what sort of government we have. I am not speaking of what Party or Parties comprise the government. I am speaking of what attitude we want our government to adopt. There can be no doubt what sort of government we would get under the Government’s proposals. It would bc an increasingly metropolitan, city dominated government. It would inevitably become major city oriented. Not only that, it would be increasingly dominated by Melbourne and Sydney.

I am informed that if this Bill becomes law approximately six-thirteenths of the members of this national Parliament will come from Sydney and Melbourne. What a mockery that makes of the Government’s high sounding phrases about decentralisation and regional development? How can this Government expect a properly representative voice in this the Australian Parliament if almost half the members come from 2 cities? I do not think that is the sort of Parliament the Australian people want or indeed what the people of Melbourne and Sydney would want. The inhabitants of the major cities are becoming well aware of the rapidly growing problems of pollution, traffic congestion and other difficulties associated with a huge modern metropolis. There is a new determination amongst the Australian people to make better use of our unique natural advantages. But these aspirations would never be fulfilled if we tie ourselves to a parliamentary system deliberately designed to give an overwhelming weighting of numbers to our major capital cities.

It is no coincidence that we now have before this House a Bill entitled the Cities Commission Bill which seeks to amend the Act which established the National Urban and Regional Development Authority and to change the name of that body to the Cities Commission. I will at least give the Government this: It is consistent. This demonstrates with absolute clarity but probably, I grant, unintentionally the basic philosophy of the Government as compared to that of the Opposition. The ALP is a city based Party and it is determined to try to ensure that the national Parliament will suffer from the same disadvantage. Labor claimed to be interested in decentralisation but it promptly changed the name of the authority charged with the responsibility of creating true decentralisation in Australia - regional development - to the Cities Commission.

The Government’s objectives are clear and blatant and they have nothing to do with electoral justice. They are designed purely and simply to favour the perpetuation of an ALP government through the deliberate policy of concentrating political power in the major cities to the disadvantage of all the other areas of Australia, not only the purely rural ones but the regional cities as well. For those reasons I completely oppose this legislation, its objective, and clause 3 in particular.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– Most of the discussion on this Bill has been devoted toward electoral ends, lt seems to me that we need to return to examine just why it is we are in this place as individuals. I think members of Parliament have 3 basic functions. Firstly, they have to represent electors in 2 ways, and 1 will come back to this point. Secondly, they have to take part in the determination of policy in this place and thirdly, to examine the actions of the Government and its bureaucracy. As to the policy determining role and the examination of the actions of government, this could be done by people outside the Parliament. They would require special skills, other attributes and experiences. I think that in this sense members of Parliament are accountable to the electorate and in that sense and only in that sense do they differ from people outside with the same skills and mix of experience.

It is on the first function that I think .we need concentrate. In this function we find justification for the Bill that is before us today. In representing the electors we have 2 separate jobs to do. We have to represent the individual elector who may have been subjected to an error by the bureaucracy or some form of injustice or who may just need some form of advice on what to do and how to go about his problems. In this sense the members we as individuals represent are absolutely vital because it is that specific number which determines the number of telephone calls to be attended to, the letters to be answered and the representations that we have to make. What I believe to be the most serious level of our representation is the need to represent individual people and to try to overcome their problems. It is inevitable that a bureaucracy will make mistakes. It is inevitable that each of us will have to contend with these errors. It is in this respect that 10 per cent is a very wide margin to consider when we compare different electorates. At another level we represent our constituents in the form of submissions which have to be prepared for various interest groups in our electorates. These might be business groups, local council groups or social interest groups. But these submissions require a great deal of work and attention and the number of submissions prepared by a member of Parliament is roughly proportional to the number of people he has in his electorate. Also., of course, the . number of submissions is proportional to the number of interest groups that are represented in the electorate. There is no way on earth in which the number of interest groups in electorates can be equalised. My own electorate of EdenMonaro is divided by a scarp which runs right down its eastern side. There is no way that geographic distinction will not separate the interest groups on the coast from those on the tablelands and also the interest groups of people who live in the country from those who live in the 2 cities of my electorate. So in any electorate there will be a disparate number of interest groups represented.

This brings me to a point which has been made time and time again in this chamber and which I believe to be the main deficiency in our capacity to perform our task. I believe that members of Parliament should have access to research skills and to people who can prepare the submissions that we are called upon to make. I doubt whether there is any member in this chamber who could actively participate with interest groups that he has to represent in this Parliament in order to prepare their submissions and put their case squarely before the country. We need to have this sort of resource and it has no relationship at all to the number of people we represent. I am speaking of the access to resources which none of us enjoy at the moment. We need research skills and a person on our staff who is capable of marshalling the arguments and representing our constituents in a way which is in their best interests.

I believe that the Bill before us today concentrates our attention on the reason why we are in this Parliament. First of all we are here to represent individuals and injustices that are perpetrated against those individuals from various sources. In that sense we are strictly related in our functions to the number of people we represent. As I said before, 10 per cent is far too wide a margin in this respect. The age pensioner whose cheque has been delayed for 3 weeks in my view has to get top priority over any profound policy functions that the politician has to perform. These people who have to represent 80,000 people in their electorates just cannot contend with the volume of work that comes through at this level. It is absolutely essential that we equalise that work load in particular. Members of Parliament have other functions to perform in this place in regard to their activities in policy determination and examining the actions of government and the bureaucracy that works for it. With this in mind 1 believe it would be very useful for members to have access to personal research assistance. I know-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order!I remind the honourable member that we are debating clause 3 of the Bill. 1 suggest that he relate his remarks to that clause. He is diverging quite widely.

Mr WHAN:

– Clause 3 of the Bill refers to community of interests, means of communication and travel, the trend of population changes and all of the factors for which we need to have research assistance. As I was saying, the other functions that a member of Parliament has to discharge in regard to policy and the examination of actions of government also require this sort of personal research assistance. When we look at the sort of representations that we have to make for individuals, I believe it would pay us to bring these cases together and to examine in the aggregate the sort of problems with which one is confronted. In the short time that I have been here I have made 32 representations to the Postmaster-General’s Department, 19 to the Department of Repatriation, 44 to the Department of Social Security, 35 to the Department of Education and 14 to the Department of Health, as well as many other representations for individual cases that

We have not characterised in these terms. But I put this as an example of the type of representation that it is necessary for us to bring into this place. If we examine the breakdown of representations we receive we discover certain pockets of bureaucratic inactivity or other omissions which affect individuals in our electorates. If we had research assistance we would be able to put these cases into a systematic form-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I remind the honourable member that the subject of the clause is not open to a general debate on representation. The subject matter of clause 3 is: Matters to be considered in distribution of a State’. The subject of the clause which the honourable member read out a moment ago refers to matters to be taken into consideration by the Distribution Commissioners. I would suggest that the honourable member is getting a little wide of the clause. His remarks would most likely have been in order during the debate on the second reading of the Bill. I think they are somewhat out of order at the moment.

Mr WHAN:

– Thank you for your guidance, Mr Chairman. The matters contained in clause 3 show that the individual member has to diversify his activities in such a way that the amount of time that he is able to devote to these activities is determined by the number of individuals he has to represent. As I have said, I believe that this is a most important factor in determining the allocation of his time. I am suggesting that the matters contained in clause 3 give rise to the extra work that a member has to do and this work would be covered by the facilities I have mentioned. I believe that this approach to the problem of representation in this Parliament, as portrayed in this clause, is the only way in which a member can effectively discharge his responsibility and perform the functions for which he has been elected to this Parliament.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– The amendments which the Committee is discussing at the moment -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 51

Majority .. ..11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That clause 3 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 4 (Redistribution)

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– It is obvious from this Bill and the amendments to it that the Government is not happy to let our democratic way of life proceed. Clause 4 of the Bill deals with redistribution. The Government proposes to alter the tolerance from one-fifth to one-tenth. From listening to the debate on this Bill this evening and previously one would think that the tolerance, which has been 20 per cent, was brought in by the Australian Country Party. If one says something for long enough somebody is bound to believe it. But the tolerance principle has been followed since 1902. Why in heaven’s name should those statements have been made in this debate, both before the suspension of the sitting for dinner and afterwards, suggesting that the Country Party was responsible for that part of the original legislation? It did nothing of the sort. The Country Party was not even in existence in 1902. Therefore the remarks that have been made repeatedly in that vein are completely untrue. Our forefathers were very wise. They were dealing with a very big country. I will deal with that aspect in a moment. Those statements have been made repeatedly and they are simply not true.

I want to address some remarks to the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) who is in charge of this Bill. In the course of his remarks before the suspension of the sitting he referred to Western Australia’s entitlement to an extra seat, which would give that State 10 seats in all. If I remember his words correctly - I will certainly check them in Hansard tomorrow - he said that he hoped the Parliament would pass this Bill so that he could proceed to give Western Australia a tenth seat. The inference in that remark was that we needed this Bill to give Western Australia another seat. But that is not correct. The Minister and his Government are under an obligation to provide an extra seat for Western Australia immediately the census figures are completed. That is the situation at the moment. There is an obligation on the Government of the day to give that State an extra seat in a separate redistribution. That obligation is on the Minister at the moment, and he does not need this legislation to do that. He knows that as well as I do.

The Minister referred to the Western Australian position in relation to the tolerance. He outlined the position in all the States. When he reached Western Australia he said that there was a tolerance of 10 per cent. I do not think the Minister would disagree that those were the remarks he made earlier today. Let me inform the Committee and the Minister of the situation in Western Australia. There is a Labor Government in that State at the moment. There have been Labor governments in Western Australia on many occasions. Let me inform the Committee of the position in the Legislative Assembly election on 20th February 1971. I have an official document which indicates the. number of voters and the number of seats. This will show that the Minister’s reference to 10 per cent was quite incorrect. For instance, let me give a sample of electorates in the metropolitan area. In the electorate of Ascot there were 14,272 electors on the roll; in Balcatta there were 20,269; in Belmont there were 14,742; in the seat of Canning there were 21,346. There are more metropolitan seats but I do not want to bore the Committee by going through them.

I now move to the agricultural, mining and pastoral areas. In the electorate of Albany there were 6,596 electors on the roll at that time; in Avon there were 6,110; in Blackwood there were 6,081. That is another sample. The rest of them in that category are much the same. There are many more seats. Now let me turn to the north-west, to the Murchison-Eyre area. In the electorate of Gascoyne there were 3,285 electors on the roll; in Kimberley there were 3,148; in Mur- chison-Eyre there were 1,840; and in Pilbara there were 5,278. The numbers range from 20,000-odd down to 1,000, yet the Minister said this evening that there was a tolerance in Western Australia of 10 per cent.

We are dealing with Australia. I have quoted those figures tonight not only to answer the Minister’s point but also to indicate that we are dealing with Australia and not with some other country such as Switzerland or New Zealand. This is Australia and we should look at the situation from Australia’s point of view. It is a very large country. I should not have to remind honourable members that it contains 3 million square miles of territory. 1 have no doubt that when the first Commonwealth Electoral Bill was drawn up in 1902 Australia as Australia was taken into consideration and the tolerance of 20 per cent was laid down at that time. Clause 4 which we are discussing deals with redistribution and tolerance. Since 1902 Australia has been transformed into a very productive country. In more recent times there has been a rapid movement of the population of Australia into the city areas, and if the proposed amendments to the legislation that we are dealing with tonight are written into the Commonwealth Electoral Act the number of city members will rapidly increase and the number of country members will decrease, because the only way new boundaries can be drawn up is by taking out of the present legislation provisions relating to disabilities arising from distance and remoteness, density or sparsity of population and the area of divisions. These provisions are to be taken out. If that is done, obviously in practice in the rapidly growing metropolitan areas and especially around the perimeter of rapidly growing areas the Commissioners will be forced to reduce the quota and increase the quota in the country areas; otherwise we will have a redistribution about every 6 months. That is obvious to anyone who studies the situation. So the present situation will be reversed completely.

Lest honourable members think that since I am a Country Party member I do not have very many people in my electorate, let me remind them that at the last election there were about 65,000 electors in my electorate. The number must have grown by now. So let us not have this suggestion that the Country Party is not representing anybody. I believe that 65,000 electors would be a little more than the average number of people represented by most members in this chamber. So 1 strongly oppose this clause. 1 believe that the proposed amendments to the legislation are nol in the best interests of Australia. They will only force a situation in which there are more members in city areas and they will retard the number of members in the country areas, where in fact a greater membership is required. If I understand the position correctly not only the Opposition but also the Government wants to see fewer people going to the city areas and more people congregating in other parts of Australia. But this Bill does not create that situation, lt will only increase the number of people who will in fact be in our city areas. 1 do not believe that that is in the best interests of Australia.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– During the whole of the debate at the second reading stage and on each clause of the Bill we have heard millions of words spoken by the Opposition as it has desperately clutched at straws before it has sunk beneath the political waves. This Government does not seek the establishment of an electoral system which allows for rural domination or for city domination. This Bill seeks to re-establish in Australia government by the people. Those people who would deny that concept are people who would deny the very basic tenet of democratic society. There is no case in Australia for the establishment of second class citizenship. There is no case in Australia for saying that some citizens shall have less say in the selection of government than others. We are not here to preside over the dilution of citizen rights in this community, and those people who say that as a matter of some almost divine right they should have more say than others are people who do not and cannot claim to have any sympathy with the democratic concept. All must have an equal say in selecting a government.

Much has been said here about the plight of poor members in country areas; that we must have smaller electorates in country areas to suit the convenience of members of Parliament. This is a specious, spurious argument. Members of Parliament are elected by people who are entitled to vote to select the government to govern the country in the interests of the people. The people of this country do not select a few privileged citizens and say: ‘We will send you to Parliament whereafter you shall live in comfort for the rest of your life’.

That is not the purpose of a member of Parliament, at least as I see it and at least as it is seen on this side of the Parliament. If electorates are too big to allow the members concerned adequately to service them there is a case for adequate assistance and additional facilities being provided for those members. It is not and cannot be a case to say that those citizens who live in that electorate shall have more say than those who live in the overcrowded, densely populated city electorates.

It is of no use somebody saying that the country carries the city. That is sheer nonsense. And of course it is being said here in several of the arguments put that there is inconsistency in the Government’s approach for 2 reasons. Firstly, it is argued that because an equal number of senators represents each of the States we cannot expect that there should be equality of value in voting in the House of Representatives. Those who put forward that argument are indeed ignorant of history. They apparently do not realise that the idea of having equal representation in the Senate from each of the States comes from what is known as the great compromise of the Constitution convention in the United States of America in 1778. This very argument almost split the convention in half. The question was: Should there or should there not be one vote one value? The weight of the argument was ultimately that there must be equality in the value of voting, otherwise the whole concept of democratic society crashed. To protect the rights of the smaller States, the less populated regions, the compromise reached was that the other chamber, the Senate, should have 2 senators from each of the States. That is the basis of it and it is the basis of the position in Australia. And yet those on the other side of the chamber will argue: ‘Do not quote the United States Supreme Court. Do not quote what happens in the United States.’ They are either very ignorant of history or alternatively conveniently ignorant of the history of this system of government. They wish to ignore the precedence for the Federal system of government except when it suits them.

The other very spurious argument put to show alleged Government inconsistency was an argument which ran something along these lines: At the turn of the century or early in this century two-thirds or some such figure of electorates were in rural areas. Of course there was also a quite different distribution of population at that time. When one looks at the very radical proposals that my very good friend, the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), is accused of having introduced in clause 3 of this Bill and when one looks back as far as I have - perhaps it goes back further - it will be found that his proposals are almost identical with the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918. There are one or two minor variations but not much of substance. The only thing of substance is that the requirement to follow State electoral boundaries has been removed and the need to follow the trend of population - a provision which is currently in the Act - has been left in.

The Minister is accused of radical change, but the census of 1916 revealed that 60 per cent of the people of this country lived outside capital cities and 40 per cent in the capital cities. In 1972, 54 per cent of the Australian population lived in capital cities, and the population of capital cities has gone from 2 million to 8 million in that period. In other words, the enormous increase in population has been predominantly in the city areas. It has been argued that there are difficulties associated with the representation of country areas. I have already addressed myself to this aspect but let me add one comment on the difficulty of getting around. I represent an electorate which has an area of 5.3 square miles, but that is all ground space. It is a far greater area if one measures floor space because my electorate goes up, not out. I guarantee that country members in their cars or charter aircraft can travel between their country towns and cities more quickly than a city member can move between the suburbs of Sydney in peak hour traffic. This, of course, is a factor which honourable members opposite overlook. They conveniently overlook the problems associated with high rise development and with overcrowding in city electorates. The difficulties associated with representation in the cities are equally as great as they are in most rural areas.

However, this evening we are discussing a simple point: What is the most convenient way for members of this chamber to represent electors? We are discussing what is the most democratic and most equitable way of ensuring that we have government by the people and that every citizen has an equal say. We do not want to develop second class citizens or a citizen who has a diluted vote. I put it to the Committee that the real essence of this Bill is to ensure that the right of the people to select their government is preserved. What is on trial tonight is the basic concept of democracy. Never mind about propaganda slogans; let us look at the facts and the principles. The fact is that this Bill will bring the Act much closer to the concept of an equal value for each vote cast. Is that not the basis of democracy? I put it that those who deny it deny the very foundation on which our parliamentary system of government is based. This amendment should be agreed to because it will ensure that the will of the people prevails.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I rise to reply briefly to the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordon). I was surprised that he would even enter a debate on such an issue. Had it been his colleague, the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), I would have listened with some degree of sympathy. I would have recognised that he would have been speaking with a degree of sincerity. The honourable member for Phillip, of course, represents one of the most compact electorates in New South Wales. Only an honourable member like the honourable member for Phillip could fail to understand the difficulties of parliamentary members in country electorates such as Darling. The honourable member would not appreciate what the problems of distance, remoteness and area mean not merely to parliamentary members but to people living in such electorates.

Mr King:

– He could cover his electorate with a public address system.

Mr HUNT:

– That is true. Gwydir is the most magnificent electorate in New South Wales in every way. It is an electorate with tremendous earning capacity. It is a productive area noted for its great scenic beauty. It is far better than the Riverina electorate. If the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) were present I am sure he would join issue with me. Gwydir has an area of 32,250 square miles. It is the size of Austria. It contains more than 20 different local governing bodies - shires and municipalities. It has a number of country councils and regional local governing bodies. The member, of course, has to maintain close contact with all these local governing bodies. Gwydir extends from the Queensland border to south of Dubbo. It is of a diverse character. It contains one of the largest Aboriginal populations in New South Wales, probably second only to the electorate qf Darling. It has as wide a (ange of agricultural production as any electorate in Australia with a multiplicity of organisations representing the various industries. Manufacturing industry is taking hold in the area. It has a mining industry - a coal industry and a tin industry to the north. It contains the largest cotton growing industry in Australia. It has many other diversified irrigation areas that are bringing into the area not only increased production but also a degree of difficulty. In the electorate there are SO towns spread between the Queensland border to south of Dubbo and these must be serviced as much as possible by the member.

Those country members who work in their electorates must return to their electorates every week-end. When I am in Boggabilla, for instance, it is of no value to the people of Dubbo 300 miles away. When the honourable member for Darling is in Broken Hill does anyone in Walgett know that he is in Broken Hill? When the honourable member for Phillip is in his electorate the people would surely know that he is there because all he needs do is go to his office, which is probably in the heart of a three or four square mile electorate, to be able to communicate with and get close to his people. This is good for members representing this sort of electorate and certainly good for the people they represent.

Perhaps there are other ways of trying to overcome the problem. I do not want to canvass all of them. However I believe that government departments should have regional offices in every country town in Australia. For instance, there should be an agency or an office of the Department of Social Security in every town, regardless of its size, if we are to overcome poverty. Difficulties are associated with the Aborigines in my area. Many of them do not even know their entitlements and the member is not able to spread himself daily, weekly or monthly from one town to another to inform and assist these people.

Mr Riordan:

– How did you get on when you were a Minister?

Mr HUNT:

– I have held these views for a long time and I am not afraid to express them anywhere. I believe the people in the rural areas of Australia are neglected.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member should address-

Mr HUNT:

- Mr Chairman, I get emotional about these problems that face a member.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! When I am speaking I would ask the honourable member to remain silent. I suggest’ that the honourable member should relate his remarks to the clause. He is getting very wide of the clause.

Mr HUNT:

– It is all relevant.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It may well be relevant but this is the Committee stage of the Bill and clauses are being debated. Up to this stage the honourable member has not mentioned the clause under discussion.

Mr HUNT:

– The point I am making is that under the provisions of this Bill the present enormous size of electorates will be extended as a result of an increase in the tolerance. Undoubtedly this will make it even worse for the people who are being represented in electorates like Gwydir and Darling. If this Bill is passed the number of voters in the electorate of Darling must be increased by at least 9,000, and whence will these people come? The commissioners will look at the city of Dubbo and will lump Dubbo, West Dubbo and Gilgandra into the electorate of Darling, or Parkes or elsewhere, pushing in a group of people who have no community of interest with the residents of Broken Hill. Not only is this bad from the member’s point of view but it is also bad for the people living in Dubbo. It will be of no advantage to the people living in Broken Hill. It is incredible that we should have to debate an issue such as this. I cannot understand why experienced people who have some knowledge of the extent of the diversity in this the largest island continent in the world should try to tailor an electoral system that does not suit the physical or geographical features of this country. I do not believe it is fair to the rural people.

Forget the Country Party; it represents 20 of the 45 rural seats. The Labor Party polls 44.8 per cent of rural votes in Australia and the Liberal Party polls at least 10 per cent. So this is not a party political matter. One should not talk in terms of it being party political. Let us not forget the people that a government should set out to represent, whether they be Aborigines living on the bank of the Darling River or struggling farmers living on the Namoi. We are all Australians and we should not try to take cheap political points by favouring rural areas over city areas or vice versa. It is time we tried to look at this matter in a sensible and rational and national way and forgot about taking cheap political tricks and trying to engineer an electoral system to the short term advantage of one political party.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– 1 was most intrigued when the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said that he got very emotional about this matter of country representation and the need for more services to be provided to honourable members from country electorates. I was here all the time he was a Minister in the previous Government and for a long time before that but I never heard him put up any fight in this House for the sort of facilities he mentioned tonight. Now that he is in the Opposition he gets emotional about such matters.

I want to answer the attack on Tasmania that has been made by some honourable members from the Country Party and by several honourable members in the Liberal Party in this debate. In trying to support their very weak arguments they dragged into the debate the Tasmanian situation and asked: ‘Where is the one vote one value principle in Tasmania on a comparison with the mainland States?’ Let us look at the situation. Interestingly enough Tasmania was granted 5 seats in the House of Representatives at the beginning of the Federal Parliament, back in 1901, and it is written into the Constitution, at page 8 of the copy that I have:

Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-four, the number of members to be chosen in each State at the first election shall be as follows: -

Provided that if Western Australia is an Original State, . . .

It was eventually- the numbers shall be as follows: -

The numbers were revised, strange to say, when Western Australia came in -

So Tasmania started off from scratch with five and still has five 72 years later. In other words, if the representation for Tasmania had been worked out on the same basis as for the mainland, Tasmania might have had only 2 or 3 seats in the beginning. But in their wisdom the planners of our Constitution said that Tasmania should have 5, even though it did not deserve that number at that time. But what is the position in 19737 New South Wales had 26 members to start with in 1901 and today it has 43. Tasmania still has 5. Tasmania will not get 6 until it has another 20,000 or 30,000 voters, perhaps more than that. So when we look at the situation there can be no argument. The number of members for Tasmania was fixed by the Constitution at 5. Tasmania cannot have less than that and certainly will not get more for a long time yet. Possibly it will be not until well into the 1980s before Tasmania is entitled to one more member. In Tasmania the tolerance at present between the seat with the lowest number of electors and the seat with the highest number is only 2i per cent so I do not think there will be any redistribution in Tasmania on this occasion. The last time there was a redistribution I collected an extra 1,100 square miles of territory.

Another thing which the Constitution did for Tasmania was give it the same number of senators as it gave each of the other States and all States started off in 1901 with 6 senators each, a total of 36 senators for the whole of Australia. Today there are 10 senators from each State, 60 for the whole of Australia. Why was all this done? It was done to protect the little States from the octopus strength of the large States. Of the little States, Western Australia was one, South Australia another and Tasmania was the third. So Tasmania was entitled to the same number of senators as the mainland States. What chance would these 3 States have had if they had not been given equality with the other States?

I think the early planners of our Constitution did a magnificent job. I dread to think what would have happened had the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and a few other honourable members on the other side of the House had anything to do with it at that time. I am glad that he was born about 60 years after the Constitution was first brought into being. I am glad he was born; I am just glad that he was not born way back when he might have had something to do with the Constitution. He probably would have wiped Tasmania off the map altogether and would not have given it any decent representation. We have about 203,000 voters in 5 electorates in Tasmania at the moment. Of course, this is not worked out on an equal basis with the mainland. The average in Tasmania is about 40,000 people in each electorate. But it is quite wrong to drag Tasmania into the argument against this Bill because Tasmania had its number decided by the Constitution and that number will not be altered for many years.

The honourable member for Gwydir made a statement with which I thoroughly agreed. He said that in a Bill like this it is ridiculous to separate the country seats held by the Australian Country Party from the country seats held by the Liberal Party and the country seats held by the Labor Party. We all belong to the rural community of Australia. This old fight between city and country has been going on ever since I have been in this place, and it is one of the most meaningless fights I know of. The idea of this sort of legislation is to give equality to ail sections of the community as near as it can be physically done. The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) made a very statesmanlike speech on this matter a while ago and 1 congratulate him on it, as 1 have congratulated him on all his speeches in this place. He is rapidly becoming one of the real fire-eaters on this side of the House. The honourable member represents a big city electorate but he also believes that we are fighting for justice on behalf of everybody, both in the city and in the country, and should not be trying to set one section of Australia against another, i know that beneath the benign exterior of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who introduced this Bill, he too agrees with me. Mountains have been made out of molehills in this Bil! by people with great imaginations, tremendous imaginations and unbridled enthusiasm for I do not think the dangers are present which they think are present. Whether this Bill gets through the other place or not-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– It will not.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Perhaps it will not, but if it does not we will go on with the redistributions throughout Australia just the same, because they have to be carried out as a result of the last census. The Government has put up an honest fight in presenting this Bill. It is our belief that the 10 per cent tolerance should be introduced. If this legislation is defeated the Government will have to take its defeat in the right spirit. This legislation has been democratically put before the Parliament and it will be democratically defeated or passed.

We should cease fighting about the difficulties involved in representing country and city electorates. The honourable member who represents a city electorate has the same type of work to do as the honourable member who represents a country electorate and he has to do it for very much the same type of people. Nobody can say that he is working in a different field to any other honourable member. I believe that in some cases an honourable member who represents a large city electorate of say 50,000 electors could work harder than I do and I have to work 75 hours a week to look after the 43,000 electors in my country electorate. Of course anyone who has a larger electorate would have to work harder. By ‘larger’ I do not necessarily mean larger in size but larger in population. All members of this Parliament work among the same type of people for the same objectives. This Bill is designed purely and simply to bring more justice to all citizens in electorates throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

- Mr Chairman, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) made-

Motion (by .Mr Hansen) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– The question is ‘That the question be now put’. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The noes have it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is a division required?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Ring the bells. (The bells being rung) -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Chairman, the Leader of the House came to a firm agreement three-quarters of an hour ago and he has just broken it.

Mr Daly:

– That is not right. That is false.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Chairman, he came to a firm agreement with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Daly:

– I will just tell the honourable member for Wannon that he has lied to the House.

Mr McVeigh:

– I rise to order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would suggest to the honourable member that he should observe the procedures of the House when taking a point of order during a division.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Chairman, I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw the remark he made, which was unparliamentary.

Mr McVeigh:

-I rise to order, Mr Chairman. Last night in this chamber the Minister for Services and Property gave an assurance that each and every honourable member who wished to speak on this Bill-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. Arrangements which are made or assurances which are given by parties are not the subject of the Standing Orders and only under the Standing Orders are honourable members entitled to take points of order.

Mr Daly:

– The honourable member for Wannon would not accept the offer. That appears in Hansard. He said it was not good enough. He would not accept it. The honourable member for Darling Downs should read his copy of the Hansard record.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The question is That the question be now put’.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title. .

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member wait until I call him.

Mr Sinclair:

– One can speak to the title of the Bill, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for New England will wait until he is called, before he addresses the Chair. I now call the honourable member for New England.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– The title of the Bill relates to the distribution of the States into electoral divisions. In fact, the Bill has a far wider compass than its title spells out in the form of words used.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed

That the question be now put.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It is unfortunate that in a debate of this character we are not given the opportunity to detail the various concerns that we have not only as to the form of words by which the Bill is entitled but also as to the contents of the Bill itself.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The distribution of the States into electoral divisions is the most fundamental part of the whole gerrymander-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr SINCLAIR:

-. . . for which the Labor Government is responsible-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable member for New England does not resume his seat I will name him.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority .. ..10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the title be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - MrG. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Sinclair - Mr Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member will be out of order if he seeks to move any amendment to the motion.

Question put:

That the Bill be reported without amendment.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– I move:

That the report be adopted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

- Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now recommitted.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Sinclair:

– Forty people have been gagged this afternoon.

Mr Katter:

– I have much pleasure in seconding the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Sinclair:

– My amendment?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The closure is what I am talking about.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

In Division.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order. Any honourable member can move at any stage that the question be now put, and there is no debate on that motion.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The closure may not be moved until the motion has been moved and seconded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Katter:

Mr Speaker, may I seek your advice? Immediately the Deputy Leader of my Party moved that motion, I seconded it. This having been done, I should like your ruling on what eventuates.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The motion was not put from the Chair because it was not seconded at the time. I did not hear a seconder. I did not know that you had seconded the motion, and as far as I could see, the motion was not seconded.

Mr Katter:

– I did second it, Mr Speaker.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is -

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This being Wednesday night and as it is after 10.15 p.m., under the Standing Orders we should now move for the adjournment of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The division must be completed before the adjournment is moved.

Mr Wentworth:

– But, Mr Speaker, the division has been completed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The division has been completed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Will the honourable gentleman resume his seat? 1 have given my decision. The Chair cannot entertain a motion for the adjournment while a division is taking place. The matter before the House is that the question be put.

Mr Gorton:

– What question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That the report be adopted.

Mr Gorton:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is. The question before the House is that the report be adopted.

Question put:

That the report be adopted.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 52

Majority ..11

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in affirmative.

Debate interrupted.

page 1103

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being past 15 minutes past 10 o’clock p.m. and in accordance with the Order of the House of 1st March, I propose the question that the House do now adjourn.

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker, I ask that the question be put forthwith.

Question put:

That the House do now adjourn.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 52

NOES: 62

Majority .. ..10

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1104

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1973

Third Reading

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member would only pay attention he would know that no motion to suspend Standing Orders had been moved tonight.

Mr Wentworth:

– If there has been no suspension of Standing Orders, the resolution of the House about the adjournment prevails and the House stands adjourned or the adjournment debate proceeds.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Although the resolution of 1st March was that the question that the House do now adjourn be put at 10.15 on Wednesday nights, it is still a matter for the House to decide whether the House will adjourn.

Mr Daly:

– I ask for leave of the House to move the third reading forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Opposition members - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages of the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) being passed without delay.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister.

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

Mr Speaker-

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise on a point of order. For the suspension of Standing Orders an absolute majority is required.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, a point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Wannon.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent standing order 93 being suspended again during the remainder of the consideration of the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2).

Mr Speaker:
Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order. I had the call. The honourable member took a point of order. I take the point that I am entitled to the call.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Wannon did not raise a point of order; he moved a motion-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I have moved a motion, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– You asked for a point of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– During the course -

Mr DALY:

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise to a point of order.

Mr DALY:

– I move:

That the question be now pat.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, there was a motion before the Chair which had not been put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is correct. You can move the suspension at any time after the Minister moves the third reading. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Those of that opinion say ‘Aye’, to the contrary’No’.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– On a point of order-

Mr Daly:

-I have moved that the question be now put.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I moved a motion concerning the suspension of Standing Orders, properly signed and properly-

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker, I have moved that the question be now put.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

-I submit that a proper opportunity ought to have been given for that motion to be seconded, argued and put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A motion has been moved: ‘That the question be put’. I must put that motion without debate. Any honourable member of the House can move it. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, if the question for the suspension of Standing Orders is put, are you meaning to rule that there is no opportunity for that motion to be debated in this Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member did not have the call. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I was on my feet, Mr Speaker. You were looking at me and you called me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Those of that opinion say ‘Aye’, to the contrary ‘No’. 1 think the Ayes have it. Is a division required?

Opposition members - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House will divide.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1107

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 11 o’clock, in accordance with the order of the House, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1108

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated;

Commonwealth Employment Service: Operations (Question No. 38)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. What was the number of (a) inquiries to and (b) placements made by the Commonwealth Employment Service in each State in 1972.
  2. What (a) number and (b) percentage of the persons concerned was (i) single, (ii) married, (iii) male, (iv) female, (v) juniors, (vi) adults - male, (vii) adults - female, (viii) skilled, fix) semi-skilled, (x) unskilled, (xi) professional and (xii) migrants.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (la) Figures of the total number of inquiries made to the Commonwealth Employment Service are not available as no record is kept of telephone calls. The figures shown below relate to the total number of persons who registered with the CES for employment assistance during 1972 and to the number of people who called seeking advice or information.

  1. (b) The number of confirmed placements made by the Commonwealth Employment Service in each State in 1972 is as follows:
  1. Information is not compiled in respect of all the categories requested. The data which are available are shown in the following tables:

Australia Day Observance (Question No. 75)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice:

  1. Is he conducting an inquiry into the observance of Australia Day.
  2. If so, what form is the inquiry taking.
  3. What are its terms of reference.
  4. Which person or persons has he authorised to conduct the inquiry.
  5. When will the inquiry be completed.
Mr Grassby:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It is intended that information will be sought from community organisations affiliated with the Good Neighbour Councils in the states and territories as to their involvement in this year’s Australia Day celebrations.
  3. Each agency affiliated with each Good Neighbour Council is to be requested to describe such activities of any kind which they arranged to mark Australia Day.
  4. Mr P. N. Shaw, Co-ordinator of the Good Neighbour Councils, has been asked to conduct this inquiry.
  5. The inquiry should be completed by 31st May 1973.

Industrial Absenteeism (Question No. 57)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

Can he say how many man-days were lost per 1,000 employees in Australia and in the major countries in the Western World because of (a) absenteeism (b) industrial accidents and (c) strikes during each calendar year from and including 1966.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Absenteeism. Studies conducted by my Department on absence from work in Australia have indicated that considerable differences occur in levels of absence between firms and between industry and occupational groups. For example, a survey of 186 firms carried out for the months of August and September 1966, found absence rates ranging from 2.3 per cent to S.8 per cent, with an average of 4.2 per cent of total work-hours rostered. For statistical reasons entirely reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from these figures about absence in the Australian workforce as a whole. However, a rough approximation can be arrived at by applying the average figure of 4.2 per cent to the total workforce, so obtaining a figure of ten thousand workdays lost through absence per 1,000 employees each year. Statistics available on absence do not permit the requested international comparisons to be made. (b)Industrial Accidents. A Working Party set up by the Commonwealth and State Departments of Labour has estimated that, for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, disabling injuries causing one or more days’ absence from work were occurring at the approximate rate of 40 per million man-hours worked, or approximately 80 per 1,000 employees per year.

No detailed estimates have been made for other years. However, there are strong indications that in all States and in Commonwealth employment there is a slight but perceptible decrease in the number of injuries in relation to the workforce.

Injury rates have been quoted by some major industrial countries but differences in the bases of reporting and in methods of collection make any comparisons extremely unreliable.

  1. Strikes. The table below (based on information supplied by the International Labour Office) shows the number of days lost through industrial disputes per 1,000 persons employed in a number of countries, from 1966 to 1971. The industries covered are mining, manufacturing, construction and transport. As the definitions used for these statistics vary from country to country too much significance should not be attached to relatively small differences in the figures. The information was published in the October 1972 issue of the United Kingdom Department of Employment Gazette.

The figures for Australia in the above table are not comparable with the Commonwealth Statistician’s industrial disputes statistics.

Immigration Procedures (Question No. 80)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice:

  1. Has he sent new instructions to every post and every country in the world that prospective migrants are to regard themselves as apprentice citizens.
  2. If not, did he at any time say that new instructions of this nature had been sent.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

On 31st January I announced that new procedures would be introduced for the determination of applications to migrate to Australia. Under these procedures, one of the five basic requirements to be met by migrants is that they should have a sincere intention of making a permanent home in Australia, and joining the Australian family through citizenship. All overseas posts have been instructed to implement the new procedures as soon as it is administratively practicable.

Migrants’ Contributions to Productivity (Question No. 81)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Did he publicly state that, on the figures which his Department now has, a migrant contributes twice as much to national productivity as he takes out.
  2. If so, will he provide these figures and state the factual basis of this statement.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

A final assessment must await the Cost-Benefit Analysis which is being carried out by Professor J. R. Wilson. But we already know that migrants contribute proportionately more to the workforce than they do to the population supported by that workforce, that they include a substantial proportion of skilled and other key workers, that the great majority receive all their educational and vocational training prior to coming here and, therefore, at no cost to Australia and that they contribute particularly to the maintenance and development of key industries and services.

Even the costs of migrants’ assisted passages are offset, through taxation, within a short time of their arrival here.

Applications to Migrate (Question No. 92)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Will he list, by country of origin, the number of persons who (a) applied, (b) were approved, (c) were rejected for entry into Australia and (d) arrived in Australia as (0 visitors and (ii) residents since 5th December 19727

Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. The information sought in (a), (b) and (c) Is not available.
  2. So far as (d) is concerned, detailed statisticsin the form requested are compiled and published quarterly by the Bureau of Census and Statistics and by the Department of Immigration. The next edition covering the quarter ending December 1972 should be available in May 1973.
  3. At this stage only summary statistics in respect of visitor arrivals for the month of December 1972 are available and these are provided in the following table:

Good Neighbour Council (Question No. 85)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice:

  1. Did he state that he intends to reactivate the Good Neighbour Council.
  2. If so, what are his proposals to carry out his intention.
  3. What (a) financial and (b) other assistance has the Government provided to the Good Neighbour Council since 4th December 1972.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Good Neighbour Council in each State and Territory will be encouraged to extend its affiliations with all agencies whose members and resources might provide assistance to migrants in their neighbourhoods. Such agencies not already members of Good Neighbour Councils will be encouraged to affiliate where appropriate, and those for whom such affiliation would be unconstitutional will be encouraged to cooperate with the Good Neighbour Council in specific projects. The aim will be to achieve the greatest possible voluntary involvementof members of the community in extending a spontaneous welcome to newcomers and helpful, practical advice and assistance to facilitate their successful settlement.
  3. (a) Financial assistance provided by the Government to the Good Neighbour Councils since 4th December 1972, comprised payments of the Third Quarter allocation of Grant-in-Aid funds to cover the period 1st January 1973 to 31st March 1973 in accordance with the 1972/73 appropriation for this purpose. The amount allocated to the 8 Good Neighbour Councils totalled $152,944. Between 4th December 1972 and 31st December 1972, the Good Neighbour Councils were utilizing funds provided on 1st September 1972 to cover the Second Quarter of the financial year.

    1. Since 31st January this year 1 have visited the capital city of each State to inspect my Department’s branches and to confer with Good Neighbour Councils. This has afforded the opportunity for informal discussion with key members of the Good Neighbour Councils and representatives of ethnic organisations and other agencies with the aim of encouraging wider participation in the voluntary community work of assisting migrants in their settlement. Throughout the period under consideration, the Good Neighbour Councils have continued to receive the normal coordination services and technical advice as required from officers of my Department.

Applications to Migrate (Question No. 101)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Will he list, by country of origin, the number of persons who (a) applied, (b) were approved, (c) were rejected for entry into Australia and (d) arrived in Australia as (i) visitors and (ii) residents in each calendar year from 1962 to 1972 inclusive?
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

Comprehensive statistical information is maintained only of persons who arrived in Australia as visitors (long or short term) or as residents.

Migrants: Departures (Question No. 126)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice: .

  1. Has a report dealing with the departure rates of migrants from Australia been received by the Migrant Advisory Council or the Migrant Planning Council.
  2. If so, what are the main findings of the report.
  3. What action does he propose to take as a result of the report.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) At the date of the honourable member’s question, copies of the Progress Report on Departures, by the Immigration Advisory Council’s Committee on Social Patterns, were being produced to allow me to table it in the House. I tabled the report on 13th March 1973.
  2. I have instructed my Department to take appropriate action in relation to the findings of the report.

Unpublished Reports to Governments (Question No. 135)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he request his Ministers to discover the secret documents not published by the McMahon and previous Governments; if so, what is the list of the documents so discovered.
  2. Is it proposed that they should all be tabled; if not, why not in each case.
  3. Has the Treasury report on price control been completed; if so, is it regarded as such a document.
  4. Will he arrange for this document to be tabled in the House.
  5. Will he give an assurance that it is entirely a Treasury document without deletion or amendment.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) In pursuance of undertakings given prior to the elections to keep the Australian people informed of the facts and of the choices before them, lists of reports not published by the McMahon and previous Governments in recent years have been drawn up with a view to considering release. Some papers have already been released and consideration is being given to the release of more. If the honourable member wishes particularly to nominate a specific report for release I shall be glad to arrange for his request to receive early attention.

Northern Territory: Urban Land Control (Question No. 211)

Mr Calder:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for the

Northern Territory upon notice:

In view of the support given by the then Labor Opposition to the McMahon Government’s proposals for constitutional reform in the Northern Territory and the introduction of a new Department of Urban and Regional Development, will the Government abide by that part of the offer made to the Legislative Council which proposed that control of urban land would come under a Territory executive.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The Labor Opposition always supported a general proposal for constitutional reform in the Northern Territory. At theclose of the last Parliament the previous Government’s proposals for constitutional reform in the Northern Territory were being considered by the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council has since . sought the present Government’s attitude to administrative and constitutional reform for the Northern Territory and there have been several discussions between members of the Legislative Council and myself. I have also suggested the possibility of establishing a Joint Parliamentary Committee to involve Parliament in issues affecting: the Territory. The question of the control of urban land is under consideration.

Australian Capital Territory: Land Sales (Question No. 245)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many blocks in the (a) restricted and (b) unrestricted categories will be offered for sale by his Department at the next auctions.
  2. How many blocks will be made available for detached housing in 1973.
  3. Will there be sufficient land available to meet anticipated demand due to population growth.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The division of available blocks for subsequent auctions is presently under review.

Overall in the four subsequent sales the approximate number of blocks to be offered is as follows:

May 217; June 202; July 185; August 285.

  1. See answer to Question 243 (3).
  2. See answer to Question 243 (1) and (5).

Lake Pedder (Question No. 290)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for the

Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to public statements by members of the Government, prior to 2nd December 1972, promising that the Australian Labor Party in Government would move quickly to save Lake Pedder from flooding.
  2. What action has been taken by the Government to protect Lake Pedder.
  3. Has the Government been provided with any cost estimates relating to Lake Pedder; if so, will he list each estimate.
  4. Has the Government made any offer of financial assistance te the Tasmanian Government in relation to Lake Pedder.
  5. If so, what was the (a) level of financial assist ance offered and (b) nature of the response from the Tasmanian Government.
  6. Has be made any recommendations to Cabinet concerning Lake Pedder; if so, what were the recommendations.
  7. If not, what were his reasons for not bringing the matter to Cabinet.
  8. What was the purpose of his visit to Lake Pedder.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. to <8) The Australian Government has appointed a study group under the chairmanship of Professor i. Burton, Professor of Natural Resources, University of New England, to inquire into the circumstances leading to the flooding of Lake Pedder. The reports of the study group will be considered by the Australian Government and will be made public.

Government Policy Announcements (Question No. 403)

Mr Cooke:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will he ensure that, during sittings of the Parliament, all announcements of Government policy are made in the House, simultaneously with their release to the press, so that Members may, be informed of Government policy before reading about it in the newspapers.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Wherever possible 1 arrange for the Parliament to be informed, ahead of announcement elsewhere, of any new major policy decisions. To the best of my knowledge other members of the Government follow the same practice. There are, of course, quite a number of decisions taken by the Government, and particularly by the present active Government, which it is unnecessary to take up limited parliamentary time to announce in the House or Senate.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 April 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19730404_reps_28_hor83/>.